Though, the loss of income on sharing books, DVDs, and CD's is OK? Sharing books or a recorded song over the internet is no different of a principle than taking the phucking book to your friends house..... All your doing is getting caught up on words in a law.. Good job Batman.
Your wrong. To people like me and martin, theft & stealing pertain to physical objects. If I take your car, you are with-out a car. Though, if I duplicate your car, we both have cars.. If I buy a song and SHARE it over the internet, what did I steal again? Nothing... Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder. Almost everyone here, including myself would say its wrong to kill, but like most people, can find good reasons to kill if need be.... For example, to kill in self defense thus making the killing not wrong.. But killing is still wrong... See how easy it is Red.. LAW, Right, & Wrong are always situational...
we dont care what it is called, we are curious about the morality of it. repeating the law doesnt make it right
Of course it is. :insane: A child can understand the difference between loaning a book and copying a book. The word is you're. Duplicate my car? You live in the same fantasy world as martin. If you buy a song and sing it, you have stolen nothing. If you duplicate a copyrighted recording, then you are stealing. Only in martinland. The law is clear on certain matters of right and wrong. And you are wrong. What a fouled up perception. Right and wrong are not situational. Only the situations are. Murder is always wrong. Self defense is always right.
We? You mean you! Once again having lost the logical argument, you want to move the topic to philosophy. OK, it is still easy. Stealing is morally wrong . . . in every culture, at any time . . . and electronic theft is still theft. I realize that you have absolutely no concept of right and wrong, which is why this conversation is useless. And to answer mctiger's question about why I bother to argue with you . . . because it sharpens my debating skills and it annoys you. You have an obsession to get in the last post and I greatly enjoy making you get increasingly ridiculous in attempts to do so.
Thanks grammar king.. Who said murder? I said killing. There is a difference... Again quote law Batman. You refuse to talk to our points. I could give two chits about law. Everyone here, INCLUDING YOU, breaks the law in some way shape or form. As such, an argument based on that is false. I, and I believe martin, attacked your principle on loss of income... Sharing a book ='s loss of income..
Again, you are basing your argument off law. In many peoples view, even though this may be hard for YOU to believe, people morally believe sharing is just fine... I bought it, I share it... Did you drink underage? Have you ever gone over the speeding limit? Did you ever use a illegal drug? Did you use tobacco products before the age of 18? You never recorded a TV show? You never recorded a song from the radio? You talk about Martin land, apparently, you've never broken the law in your entire life....
Your entire stealing argument is moot Red. If I bought a song and shared it over the net, what did I exactly steal again? All I did was download my song from Itunes and put MY COPY in the cloud to later access for backup.....
Of course. You picked an imprecise term and tried to make point with it that was easily dismissed. That is the problem, I'm glad you got my point. You are trying to justify theft. A logical fallacy called the straw man. It makes absolutely no difference what crimes anybody else commits. Electronic theft is still a crime. I've answered this at least four times now. Not my problem if you can't get it.
You repeat the argument you made in the last post. What is the point? The whole point is that theft is illegal. You misunderstand sharing and theft, clearly. None of this has anything to do with the fact that electronic theft is still theft.
