• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

scourge99 said:
TravelSonic is right. Copyright infringment is not technically theft though it does share similiarities.

However, its amusing he gets his panties in a knot over the use of colloquial language rather than over disagreements of substance.
Click to expand...

Morally, it's theft.

In everyday parlance of people who aren't bottom-feeding ****bag attorneys, it's theft.

He needs to deal with it.
 
Travelsonic said:
Question I have about this whole thing is this: Who in their right mind would agree to almost 3/4 of a million dollars being a reasonable fine in the first place?

How does such a fine even make sense in the scheme of things?
Click to expand...

Works for me.

Then again, I'm not trying to justify theft, and don't steal music off the internet.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Morally, it's theft.

In everyday parlance of people who aren't bottom-feeding ****bag attorneys, it's theft.

He needs to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Fine, it's theft.

But it's a variety of theft I not only accept but openly support.

The internet and digital era are a new and important landmark for our species. It has changed how we communicate and transmit information, and will surely have long-term impacts on our growth as a global society.

That matters way more to me than some companies maximizing profit. They can exist with less but will always want more. This kind of agenda will not serve them in the long run.

Got any more hysterical, moral expletives you want to toss my way?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Works for me.

Then again, I'm not trying to justify theft, and don't steal music off the internet.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that I at all am defending the infringement of copyrights and piracy of works?

And re: morally it is theft.

That is a matter of opinion, not fact, as morality is relative. I accept that to you morally you think it theft.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
He needs to deal with it.
Click to expand...

If anything you need to deal with others having/defending an opinion differing than yours. Just saying' .

Morals are relative, and most of the people I talked to are smart enough to know that while they MAY (again, relativity) be on the same level, that doesn't make them the same in enforcement, consequence, and impact.

But we started talking about this on a factual/legal level, hence why I defended my points so vigorously. morals are relative, I don't care if you think they are morally the same in that your beliefs are your beliefs to interject and defend as you please. I just HATE it when people take that and apply it to everybody as fact, when you don't know what other people necessarily will feel, or if others may think differently about an issue than yourself. I also really hate it when people take that and go into a factual discussion stating such things when, in the realm of the legal/factual arguments, it is false.

Of course I don't expect one to separate both completely, as these issues require discussion of both realms - it boils down to stating opinion as fact, which I feel is always wrong regardless of which side does it and what issue is being discussed.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
With what evidence?
Click to expand...

That's the point, there is none.

scourge99 said:
Irrelevant to my point. We can't stop people from murdering people or holding up banks or any other innumerable illegal activities. It doesn't mean we make the activities legal.
Click to expand...

If you can't reasonably enforce the law, then there is no purpose of its existence. You can reasonably enforce the law against murderers and bank robbers.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
This is the level of your argument, the fifth grade?
Click to expand...

No, your attributing non physical "things" with the physical characteristic that it can be "stolen" when it can't.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
FWIW from the time the RIAA sent him a letter notifying him of the lawsuit until the verdict was rendered, there was a standing offer to settle for $4,000
Click to expand...

:2rofll: what a dumbass. His attorney fees probably cost more than that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is the point. There is none
Click to expand...
This man was convicted with evidence!!!! He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers! You think they just shook a magic eight-ball? :lol: You're in denial sir. This isn't the only case where this has happened.

Harry Guerrilla said:
If you can't reasonably enforce the law, then there is no purpose of its existence.
Click to expand...
Considering that this was a successful case it appears the law can in fact be enforced.

In fact, fear of the reprecussions keep many businesses from violating IP despite the difficulty in prosecuting individuals.
 
scourge99 said:
This man was convicted with evidence!!!! He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers! You think they just shook a magic eight-ball? :lol: You're in denial sir. This isn't the only case where this has happened.
Click to expand...

This is one case out of millions of potential cases, again it can not be reasonably enforced.

scourge99 said:
Considering that this was a successful case it appears the law can in fact be enforced.

In fact, fear of the reprecussions keep many businesses from violating IP despite the difficulty in prosecuting individuals.
Click to expand...

One case does not equal most of the cases.

Businesses are public making them easy to catch were individuals are not and are more numerous making it incredibly difficult to impossible to prosecute all of the cases.

It is largely unenforceable.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
This is one case out of millions of potential cases, again it can not be reasonably enforced.



One case does not equal most of the cases.

Businesses are public making them easy to catch were individuals are not and are more numerous making it incredibly difficult to impossible to prosecute all of the cases.

It is largely unenforceable.
Click to expand...

So what's the negative consequence of having a law that isn't easily enforced when its prosecuted almost entirely in civil court?
 
scourge99 said:
So what's the negative consequence of having a law that isn't easily enforced when its prosecuted almost entirely in civil court?
Click to expand...

Wasted time in prosecuting people, wasted time with the creation of the law.
It's a huge waste of time with no noticeable effect.

I've mentioned this earlier in this thread and I'll say it again.
If you want me to concede on IP, then the length of ownership must be brought into a reasonable time frame.

Until then I believe that downloading and uploading is all on the up and up.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wasted time in prosecuting people,
Click to expand...
obviously this case wasn't a waste of time. Judges have the ability to dismiss "waste of time" cases.

Harry Guerrilla said:
wasted time with the creation of the law.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree with your opinion. I find IP rights worth protecting even if its difficult in certain circumstances.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a huge waste of time with no noticeable effect.
Click to expand...
Upholding someones rights is never a waste of time. Yes, I understand you disagree with those rights.

I've mentioned this earlier in this thread and I'll say it again.
If you want me to concede on IP, then the length of ownership must be brought into a reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is much to discuss in that area.
 
scourge99 said:
obviously this case wasn't a waste of time. Judges have the ability to dismiss "waste of time" cases.

Well I disagree with your opinion. I find IP rights worth protecting even if its difficult in certain circumstances.

Upholding someones rights is never a waste of time. Yes, I understand you disagree with those rights.
Click to expand...

We'll always disagree with this.

We'll agree on other things. No harm, no foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom