[Cretaceous Bob]

Yoav, you already admitted copyright exists.

Originally Posted by yoav

i believe the above statements do not describe theft, i believe it's possible to take the above statements to be theft if you were to profit off said duplication, or if you intend to thwart the intent of the artist.

You state that it is theft to profit off of the duplication of art. Thus, it is wrong to profit off of someone else's work. SOMEONE. ELSE'S. WORK.

It cannot be wrong to profit off of someone else's work without ownership of art. If ownership of art exists, taking owned art without consent is theft. You can't agree to it or not agree to it; it is a byproduct of copyright existing.

Originally Posted by yoav

for the last couple pages i've been trying to help you finally express your point of view, which you really need to do because you started out yelling 'thief thief' and we all thought you were saying 'thief' based on copyright law and the system. you were very anti-theft and anti-changing the system.
at around page 19 you finally clarified that you were going 'thief thief' based on your own ideals and morals because based on the current law you are too a thief.

First of all, you're a complete fucking idiot if you assume people who have a problem with your actions are just doing so not because they personally have a problem with it, but because someone else has legislated that it is wrong.

Secondly, don't fucking dare try to pretend that I have been anything but exceedingly clear on my points. I quote EVERY SINGLE point you make and address ALL OF THEM.

You spent 19 pages yelling about the RIAA, and it was only after I reiterated myself a thousand fucking times that you finally gave that up and realized I am not arguing for the RIAA. You're only recognizing that I am saying what I am saying because it's finally become apparent to you that you cannot continue to try to associate me with the RIAA.

I am anti-change. Anti- the change you think is necessary. You are arguing for a change in how art is treated as a whole. Just because there are a few issues wrong with copyright protection legislation in the US doesn't mean I'm pro-overhauling the system; I'm not. That's been fucking clear from the beginning, but you need things repeated.

Originally Posted by yoav

what i don't understand, and i assume it's because you've been evolving your point throughout this which is fine,

Wrong, dickface. I've been hammering the exact same point into your pathetic skull this entire time.

Originally Posted by yoav

but when i said that the concept of stealing is defined by the state, you said i was an idiot? however now you say that you would like to change the state's concept of being a thief not to include making digital copies for your own personal use.

You tried to argue that thievery doesn't exist, and is purely a product of the state.

There are very clear circumstances where something is stealing. Like when I steal your TV. Or steal someone else's artistic product.

I have already told you why ripping a purchased CD to my hard drive is not stealing, and you have not cared to dispute it.

As I have already said, tell me how the fuck that's stealing and I will address it.

Otherwise, stop grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by yoav

and also you making shit up and not understanding my model and then scolding me for what you think i believe and not what i've said even when the stuff you invent me saying completely contradict my point.

I like how you just blabber with this shit and never quote A SINGLE FUCKING THING.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE INVENTED YOU SAYING SOMETHING.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR MODEL.

IF YOU DO NOT SHOW ME ANYTHING, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A LYING BITCH.

Quote me on anything, and I will show you what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by yoav

if you own the art, why does paying for the rights to watch a movie in a movie theatre not give you the rights to the art?

You pay for the right to view art once. What happens when the movie is over, you fucking idiot? You have to pay for another ticket if you want to see it again.

Originally Posted by yoav

under your model can you take a video camera into a movie theatre if you're only using the copy for your own personal use?

Obviously not, as is clear from what I stated above.

Originally Posted by yoav

what are the limits of owning art? if i purchase a cd, can i play it for my friends where 2 of the 3 present do not own a copy of the art being played? what gives them the right to the art?

Sure, you can play it for your friends.

Don't even fucking dare try to pretend that playing music for a couple friends = giving them all free copies of the music.

Originally Posted by yoav

what if one of my friends listening pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy using the microphone to record the song at better than cd quality, which he then uses for his own personal use? is he breaking the law? am i breaking the law?

Who cares? This minute shit isn't the point. Are you really going to argue for the dissolution of copyright just because you can't record music with your fucking phone?

Really?

Originally Posted by yoav

under your model is playing the same cd, in my driveway while i sit on my porch breaking the law?

You're reduced to this?

Why is it that you've decided the SLIGHTEST INCONVENIENCE to the listener is worth the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of artists' rights?

That's clearly what you're searching for.

Originally Posted by yoav

what if 5 of my neighbours gather and listen to it without them owning the art being played?

They're not retaining copies of the music, are they?

Originally Posted by yoav

what if 20 gather and i don't even know some of them?

The number of them who have copies of the music is still 0.

And as far as your rambling about capitalism and whatnot goes, it's entirely irrelevant. The economic system does not change the fact that an artist has a right to own his art, in whatever economic system he lives in. Interesting how you rip on capitalism after using it for a defense of your thievery; fickle friends, no? I guess once it can no longer act as a justification for thievery it is worth nothing to you.

By the way, I like how you try to rally back to the original point about the RIAA. And I reiterate: I have far less of a problem with an organization that fucks thieves over than a person who steals from artists. I have no desire to stick it to The Man; I want to help The Man kick your teeth in.