Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[McGarnicle]

It's really odd that in my younger days I'd steal anything and everything, but now I wouldn't take a pack of gum. A pirated CD or movie is nothing compared to what I took when I worked in retail, but I wouldn't consider it.

 

[Amused to Death]

What if I could subscribe to HBO (maybe even a free 1-month trial), record round the clock for a day to a large hard drive, unsubscribe, and keep my recordings? I'll now have 12 movies I'll never buy. Then my neighbors come over and we watch a few of them.

If you subscribed to HBO you paid for the movies through HBO.

If you circumvent paying by doing a free trial, cancelling, or yelling at a billing supervisor it's simply product fallout. You still went through their system. You could say that for any product.

If a supermarket has a promotion where you get a free gallon of milk that's not the same as going in and grabbing a free milk whenever you feel like it.

So if I paid HBO and recorded their movies, I can keep that recording long after I cancel my subscription? Or am I morally obligated to delete my HBO recordings at that point?

How about something much more likely to occur. I buy a physical CD and rip it to my hard drive, add it to itunes...basically make several digital copies for myself. My wife hears it and decides to take it to work. Likes it enough that she decides to rip it to her work computer. Stealing? What if she just kept the physical disc as I would likely never need it again. Now we both have it.

Another example - I share a lot of music through dropbox. If I'm trying to get someone to come out to a show with me and they haven't heard the band before, I'll throw a cd up on dropbox. If they decide to go, that band just benefited.

How about this - before cds I had a substantial collection on vinyl. I digitized a lot of it instead of re-buying on cd. Didn't think twice about it. Now what if a friend of mine had some of the same albums. Can I save him the trouble of converting it himself? What if I buy a cd that a friend owns on vinyl - can I let him rip my cd?

Today's music is highly portable, transferable, shareable and disposable. Very few people feel a sense of moral wrong-doing when they share it via social networks or from flash drive to hard drive.

 

[17seconds]

If you subscribed to HBO you paid for the movies through HBO.

If you circumvent paying by doing a free trial, cancelling, or yelling at a billing supervisor it's simply product fallout. You still went through their system. You could say that for any product.

If a supermarket has a promotion where you get a free gallon of milk that's not the same as going in and grabbing a free milk whenever you feel like it.

Oh good, I can take my video camera into the theatre with me then, I mean I went through their system.

Does the theater say no video cameras? The theater is part of the distribution chain.

 

[17seconds]

What if I could subscribe to HBO (maybe even a free 1-month trial), record round the clock for a day to a large hard drive, unsubscribe, and keep my recordings? I'll now have 12 movies I'll never buy. Then my neighbors come over and we watch a few of them.

If you subscribed to HBO you paid for the movies through HBO.

If you circumvent paying by doing a free trial, cancelling, or yelling at a billing supervisor it's simply product fallout. You still went through their system. You could say that for any product.

If a supermarket has a promotion where you get a free gallon of milk that's not the same as going in and grabbing a free milk whenever you feel like it.

So if I paid HBO and recorded their movies, I can keep that recording long after I cancel my subscription? Or am I morally obligated to delete my HBO recordings at that point?

How about something much more likely to occur. I buy a physical CD and rip it to my hard drive, add it to itunes...basically make several digital copies for myself. My wife hears it and decides to take it to work. Likes it enough that she decides to rip it to her work computer. Stealing? What if she just kept the physical disc as I would likely never need it again. Now we both have it.

Another example - I share a lot of music through dropbox. If I'm trying to get someone to come out to a show with me and they haven't heard the band before, I'll throw a cd up on dropbox. If they decide to go, that band just benefited.

How about this - before cds I had a substantial collection on vinyl. I digitized a lot of it instead of re-buying on cd. Didn't think twice about it. Now what if a friend of mine had some of the same albums. Can I save him the trouble of converting it himself? What if I buy a cd that a friend owns on vinyl - can I let him rip my cd?

Today's music is highly portable, transferable, shareable and disposable. Very few people feel a sense of moral wrong-doing when they share it via social networks or from flash drive to hard drive.

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

 

[tonydead]

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

Supreme court does not define torrenting as stealing, why should anyone else? I agree with you that time shifting (dvr) is not considered stealing or copyright infringement.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

Supreme court does not define torrenting as stealing, why should anyone else? I agree with you that time shifting (dvr) is not considered stealing or copyright infringement.

Can you furnish a link? I can't find any reference to a supreme court ruling on torrents.

 

[Otis]

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

Supreme court does not define torrenting as stealing, why should anyone else? I agree with you that time shifting (dvr) is not considered stealing or copyright infringement.

Can you furnish a link? I can't find any reference to a supreme court ruling on torrents.

Probably isn't one, but the torrent guys go through lots of contortions of of logic to justify to themselves that it's ok.

It's clearly stealing. If that's cool with you, cool. I'm not an artist or studio, no skin off my back.

 

[Wingnut]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is rape stealing? Is murder?

 

[jdoggydogg]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

Supreme court does not define torrenting as stealing, why should anyone else? I agree with you that time shifting (dvr) is not considered stealing or copyright infringement.

Can you furnish a link? I can't find any reference to a supreme court ruling on torrents.

Probably isn't one, but the torrent guys go through lots of contortions of of logic to justify to themselves that it's ok.

It's clearly stealing. If that's cool with you, cool. I'm not an artist or studio, no skin off my back.

Oh, it's stealing. That is clear.

 

[Scoresman]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

You can't seriously argue it's not stealing. Do it, don't do it. I'm not saying you're a bad person. But I don't believe an intelligent person can really, truly believe this isn't stealing.

 

[drummer]

Like Hollywood never rips anyone off.

 

[Scoresman]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

You can't seriously argue it's not stealing. Do it, don't do it. I'm not saying you're a bad person. But I don't believe an intelligent person can really, truly believe this isn't stealing.

The Supreme Court said it. I'm not gonna argue with them.

 

[tonydead]

You are convoluting the discussion. The only point I made is the distinction between initially obtaining media via a torrent or through a commercial distribution channel. There is a clear difference and you could define torrenting as stealing.

Copying, redistributing, etc.. obviously gray areas which has been the case ever since blank tapes. Not talking about that. I also have no moral agenda here, torrent away.

Supreme court does not define torrenting as stealing, why should anyone else? I agree with you that time shifting (dvr) is not considered stealing or copyright infringement.

Can you furnish a link? I can't find any reference to a supreme court ruling on torrents.

Dowling v. United States 1985. Precedent set.

 

[tonydead]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

You can't seriously argue it's not stealing. Do it, don't do it. I'm not saying you're a bad person. But I don't believe an intelligent person can really, truly believe this isn't stealing.

Usually you don't argue with the Supreme Court, that's why they are "Supreme".

 

[Amused to Death]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

So are you saying you wouldn't share music with anyone? At what point is it crossing the line? Can my wife "borrow" the cd I ripped? In the base sense, that's stealing too. What if she made her own copy or kept the hard copy at work?

 

[tonydead]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

 

[drummer]

People in Hollywood get all kinds of stuff for free. Even a minor reality TV star.

 

[drummer]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

So are you saying you wouldn't share music with anyone? At what point is it crossing the line? Can my wife "borrow" the cd I ripped? In the base sense, that's stealing too. What if she made her own copy or kept the hard copy at work?

That music exec can't afford hookers and blow anymore.

 

[17seconds]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

No. Torrenting music has meant a decrease in traditional record sales. That has lead to more revenue needing to come from live performances. Performers have to make their live performances more flashy and dramatic. So they come up with ridiculous stage shows. Miley Cyrus starts twerking. The victim is us.

 

[drummer]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

No. Torrenting music has meant a decrease in traditional record sales. That has lead to more revenue needing to come from live performances. Performers have to make their live performances more flashy and dramatic. So they come up with ridiculous stage shows. Miley Cyrus starts twerking. The victim is us.

Like Hannah Montana wasn't there to market her bubble gum pop.

 

[Wingnut]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

No. Torrenting music has meant a decrease in traditional record sales. That has lead to more revenue needing to come from live performances. Performers have to make their live performances more flashy and dramatic. So they come up with ridiculous stage shows. Miley Cyrus starts twerking. The victim is us.

Although I believe bands/singers should make the lions share of their money from touring. Too many auto tuned clowns these days are raping consumers by putting out a product that doesn't really represent their talent level. If you can go on the road and deliver the goods, more power to you and I hope you get rich by doing so. If you need studio tricks to sound good, you have no business in the business.

 

[Amused to Death]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

No. Torrenting music has meant a decrease in traditional record sales. That has lead to more revenue needing to come from live performances. Performers have to make their live performances more flashy and dramatic. So they come up with ridiculous stage shows. Miley Cyrus starts twerking. The victim is us.

Although I believe bands/singers should make the lions share of their money from touring. Too many auto tuned clowns these days are raping consumers by putting out a product that doesn't really represent their talent level. If you can go on the road and deliver the goods, more power to you and I hope you get rich by doing so. If you need studio tricks to sound good, you have no business in the business.

"If you're gonna do it, do it live on stage - or don't do it at all" - Neil Fallon, Clutch

 

[drummer]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

No. Torrenting music has meant a decrease in traditional record sales. That has lead to more revenue needing to come from live performances. Performers have to make their live performances more flashy and dramatic. So they come up with ridiculous stage shows. Miley Cyrus starts twerking. The victim is us.

Although I believe bands/singers should make the lions share of their money from touring. Too many auto tuned clowns these days are raping consumers by putting out a product that doesn't really represent their talent level. If you can go on the road and deliver the goods, more power to you and I hope you get rich by doing so. If you need studio tricks to sound good, you have no business in the business.

I bet Cyrus uses Pro-Tools onstage too.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I have a related question.

*I can borrow a DVD from library, return, take it out again, return, and repeat that for ever with out breaking the law.

*But if I borrow that same DVD just once, copy it, and return it, that is illegal.

I can't wrap my head around this one. Fwiw, I am a heavy torrenter and fully agree that it is stealing/copy write infringement. But I can't convince myself that the library example above should be illegal.

 

[Otis]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

Is that the justification? I guess the people who were trying to sell you the thing you stole are the victims. I get that you think they're rich, and you think they can absorb the losses easily as a result of all the other suckers in the world paying for the thing you stole, but they're victims all the same. Even if just $12 victims.

 

[Otis]

Like Hollywood never rips anyone off.

Ahhhh yes! That big mega entity "Hollywood" is out there ripping people off, so I'll steal from "Hollywood" and we'll just call it even!

It's astounding to me how the common man in America rationalizes things. But it explains so much of what's wrong with our country.

 

[Otis]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

Nobody here is arguing about the legal application of the term "steal" or the application of a particular statute. We're arguing the common parlance use of the word:

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

But thanks for the lesson, Darrow.

 

[Otis]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

I'm praying to jesus you got that off some torrentnerd board, and that you're not in law school or aspiring to law school.

By the way, let's set aside the question of how ####### geeky all these torrentnerds are amassing enormous collections of 1's and 0's to impress their friends.

I've got every Stallone movie ever made on this badboy. Dude, wanna go rip some bong hits and watch Cobra?!?!?

 

[Otis]

People in Hollywood get all kinds of stuff for free. Even a minor reality TV star.

Ah yes! People in Hollywood get stuff for free! So it's OK to steal from them!!

 

[Scoresman]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

Is that the justification? I guess the people who were trying to sell you the thing you stole are the victims. I get that you think they're rich, and you think they can absorb the losses easily as a result of all the other suckers in the world paying for the thing you stole, but they're victims all the same. Even if just $12 victims.

little Apple Paltrow sitting in her gold plated little tykes play chair eating gerber caviar and lobster while mom Gwyneth is out sucking off the rest of the hollywood elite in search of her next mega movie role and million dollar paycheck.

 

[Wingnut]

Like Hollywood never rips anyone off.

Ahhhh yes! That big mega entity "Hollywood" is out there ripping people off, so I'll steal from "Hollywood" and we'll just call it even!

It's astounding to me how the common man in America rationalizes things. But it explains so much of what's wrong with our country.

Oh come on!!!

And are you just gonna keep posting the 'ahhhh, there's an angle that hasn't been mentioned yet' comment every time someone posts an opinion? Its getting boring.

 

[NutterButter]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

 

[Amused to Death]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

I'm praying to jesus you got that off some torrentnerd board, and that you're not in law school or aspiring to law school.

By the way, let's set aside the question of how ####### geeky all these torrentnerds are amassing enormous collections of 1's and 0's to impress their friends.

I've got every Stallone movie ever made on this badboy. Dude, wanna go rip some bong hits and watch Cobra?!?!?

FTR I've never torrented any copywrited titles and can certainly understand the stealing aspect. But where's the line of being acceptable? Surely you don't think everyone needs to pay for their own copy of a CD, do you? Can your son have your loaded iPod? If that's OK, isn't that a form of rationalizing?

 

[Otis]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

Is that the justification? I guess the people who were trying to sell you the thing you stole are the victims. I get that you think they're rich, and you think they can absorb the losses easily as a result of all the other suckers in the world paying for the thing you stole, but they're victims all the same. Even if just $12 victims.

little Apple Paltrow sitting in her gold plated little tykes play chair eating gerber caviar and lobster while mom Gwyneth is out sucking off the rest of the hollywood elite in search of her next mega movie role and million dollar paycheck.

That's fine. Again, we're going in circles. If your view is that it's OK to steal from rich people, then just say you're stealing from rich people, and steal from rich people. But let's not all play word games in here and pretend it's not stealing.

 

[Otis]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

This.

 

[Otis]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

I'm praying to jesus you got that off some torrentnerd board, and that you're not in law school or aspiring to law school.

By the way, let's set aside the question of how ####### geeky all these torrentnerds are amassing enormous collections of 1's and 0's to impress their friends.

I've got every Stallone movie ever made on this badboy. Dude, wanna go rip some bong hits and watch Cobra?!?!?

FTR I've never torrented any copywrited titles and can certainly understand the stealing aspect. But where's the line of being acceptable? Surely you don't think everyone needs to pay for their own copy of a CD, do you? Can your son have your loaded iPod? If that's OK, isn't that a form of rationalizing?

We're not discussing what is "acceptable." That's an ENTIRELY different question, and likely will differ from one person to another. We're simply trying to establish that it's stealing to download, for instance, a movie out in theaters now, illegally over the internet.

 

[Scoresman]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

 

[Otis]

Like Hollywood never rips anyone off.

Ahhhh yes! That big mega entity "Hollywood" is out there ripping people off, so I'll steal from "Hollywood" and we'll just call it even!

It's astounding to me how the common man in America rationalizes things. But it explains so much of what's wrong with our country.

Oh come on!!!

And are you just gonna keep posting the 'ahhhh, there's an angle that hasn't been mentioned yet' comment every time someone posts an opinion? Its getting boring.

It's truer than you think. How many of the lower and middle classes are always #####ing about "the rich man" keeping them down. Not paying his share of taxes. etc. etc. Poor, sad, little, common, American me. Getting stepped on. The great equalizer? I'll steal when I can. And it's ok, because hell, those guys are rich. Who cares that it's stealing. Who cares that the successful guy I'm stealing from may well have busted his ### in life to be successful. To hell with all of that. I'm getting screwed, and it's not fair. Damn country, damn rich guys! NOT FAIR!

 

[Otis]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

It's embarrassing for the lawyers in this thread that someone was able to inject this sentiment here.

 

[NutterButter]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

 

[Scoresman]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

all just legal mumbo jumbo?

oh sure, well if that's the case let's start banning abortions too! and while we're at it, let's ban gay marriage! Whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says is just mumbo jumbo!!!

 

[Amused to Death]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

 

[NutterButter]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

I'm not sure what you mean by accepted. I do it b/c its easy and it saves my cheap #### a good chunk of change.

 

[drummer]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

Is that the justification? I guess the people who were trying to sell you the thing you stole are the victims. I get that you think they're rich, and you think they can absorb the losses easily as a result of all the other suckers in the world paying for the thing you stole, but they're victims all the same. Even if just $12 victims.

little Apple Paltrow sitting in her gold plated little tykes play chair eating gerber caviar and lobster while mom Gwyneth is out sucking off the rest of the hollywood elite in search of her next mega movie role and million dollar paycheck.

That's fine. Again, we're going in circles. If your view is that it's OK to steal from rich people, then just say you're stealing from rich people, and steal from rich people. But let's not all play word games in here and pretend it's not stealing.

Like rich people don't steal.

 

[drummer]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

It's embarrassing for the lawyers in this thread that someone was able to inject this sentiment here.

Like lawyers don't steal.

 

[Amused to Death]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

I'm not sure what you mean by accepted. I do it b/c its easy and it saves my cheap #### a good chunk of change.

You're OK with d/l'ing stuff but (probably) wouldn't walk into Walmart and lift the same title. There's a line somewhere you won't cross. Some degree of stealing is OK.