thats the crime, and thats what makes the two things different
Under your qualifications for crime, it is only a crime if the downloader would have purchased the record if he/she could not have downloaded it for free. I think in most cases this is untrue.
thats the crime, and thats what makes the two things different
Under your qualifications for crime, it is only a crime if the downloader would have purchased the record if he/she could not have downloaded it for free. I think in most cases this is untrue.
don't you see why the potential moneymakers would be upset, this is apples and oranges
__________________
"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
don't you see why the potential moneymakers would be upset, this is apples and oranges
It's obvious why potential moneymakers would be upset. It is not obvious, given your criteria for wrongness in the matter, why they have legal justification to sue over the matter.
Intellectual property makes sense. What you said does not.
if you haven't noticed already, we here on the nsmb are not always serious. I like to think its obvious when we're not.
Slander is not an acceptable form of humor. There was no irony, no comic absurdity in what you said. If that was meant to be a joke, you fail miserably at humor.
if you haven't noticed already, we here on the nsmb are not always serious. I like to think its obvious when we're not.
Slander is not an acceptable form of humor. There was no irony, no comic absurdity in what you said. If that was meant to be a joke, you fail miserably at humor.
Point out the phrase which you think is slander and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
Edit: Deathpiggie's last post might be slander, or libel, more accurately.
if you haven't noticed already, we here on the nsmb are not always serious. I like to think its obvious when we're not.
Slander is not an acceptable form of humor. There was no irony, no comic absurdity in what you said. If that was meant to be a joke, you fail miserably at humor.
Look, all I'm saying is that the Jews deserved it.
making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.
This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.
So wait... if you aren't trying to make money from your music, you have no just claim to your possession of it?
What if I, a musical artist, were to write songs solely for my own pleasure. I didn't want anyone else to listen to it -- my music is mine, and I intend for it to be listened to by myself alone. If someone were to somehow acquire a recording of my songs, do they have full liberties on distributing this music, without my permission? After all, I did not intend to profit from my musical endeavors.
making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.
This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.
So wait... if you aren't trying to make money from your music, you have no just claim to your possession of it?
What if I, a musical artist, were to write songs solely for my own pleasure. I didn't want anyone else to listen to it -- my music is mine, and I intend for it to be listened to by myself alone. If someone were to somehow acquire a recording of my songs, do they have full liberties on distributing this music, without my permission? After all, I did not intend to profit from my musical endeavors.
you can not send sexual fantasies to friends through torrents.
__________________
"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza