[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Yoav, you already admitted copyright exists.

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.

no one can deny copyright exists, i never did, it's a law.(misquote count = 1)

it is only wrong to profit off someone else's work if the artist's intent is that you do not. my point of view has nothing to do with ownership of art or copyright, it is has to do with the artist's intent. i wrote a couple of big, perhaps confusing for you, paragraphs on this earlier in the thread, the only possible way for you to so drastically misquote me is for it to have gone wayyy over your head(misquote count = 2)

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

what people are you talking about? what is this relating to?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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 haven't been clear at all, you can't be anti-theft and pro-theft, making a digital copy is currently theft. so you're advocating theft is ok.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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 thought you were pro riaa for so long because you kept saying you agree with the outcome of the case. i'm still a bit flabergasted by that. but you're entitled to your opinion. it's good that you clarified that you're only pro riaa when they're suing thieves.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

i never said anything i said was necessary(misquote count = 3) i said it's one possible model for the future. it's also a sound model as it worked for centuries and produced some of the greatest artworks in existance.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

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.

theft is purely of the state. in a communist state, taking someones tv would really be taking everyone's tv, if you're part of that everyone then it's not theft.

all the laws about theft and ownership are not your ideas but the state's. every last one, if you think there's some fundamental right to own things than you're wrong. you clearly can't climb out of the box that is your countries rampant corruption.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

it is stealing, and theft, because the state you live in considers it so, and if caught and prosecuted you would be convicted.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

sometimes you write a whole shit ton, and copying and quoting every line is silly because you'd been basing your whole rant off a misquote of what i said.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE INVENTED YOU SAYING SOMETHING.

refer to the misquote count above, it's common in your replies to me.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR MODEL.

refer to the misquote count above, it's also common in your replies to me

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

i believe the above miscount quote is a clear enough sample, if you'd like me to do it to a bunch of your other replies then fine, i'm not doing the whole thread just to show you you've been doing it the whole thread.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

please do, and please actually answer the questions dzgama and i would like you to answer instead of dodging them.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

so, just to clarify you're saying that in your model, you're renting the art, or are you saying that you're purchasing one movie theatre experience. you're dodging the question here.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

Sure, you can play it for your friends.

please explain properly how your concept of owning art, correlates with playing it for friends if they don't own the art

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

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?

the above two statements contradict each other, scale is an irrelevant factor, law defines right and wrong in a society just because there isn't a lot of rape doesn't mean it's ok or legal.

what if that cell phone is connected to the internet and instead of recording the friend streams the music to 3 million listeners, no profit is being made anywhere. is that ok under your model?

what if a bunch of those listeners make recordings for themselves and some others stream it to 5 million more listeners?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Really?

You're reduced to this?

this is dodging the question again, these are things the current copyright law accounts for, i'm not reduced to anything but pointing out the holes in your model, and what you have not explained in the change you want to create in the system, please answer the question.

if i play a cd i purchase on my porch or in a public space is that legal under your model?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

(misquote misextrapolation put words in my mouth count = 4)

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

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

you never answered the last few questions

what if someone pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy for their own personal use? did that person steal? did that person steal from me or the artist?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

a) this is rambling, you're not quoting direct lines here, you're doing exactly what you scolded me for doing in the same post..
b) you're completely wrong and need to read about different styles of government and economics.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

again no direct quotes, you're just rambling here. maybe when it's you who get's sued $2 million for ripping a cd to your ipod you will want to stick it to the man. maybe then you'll be able to grasp what i'm saying instead of misquoting me and then responding to the misquotes.

i think it's weird that we both want change, but you don't seem to do anything to bring about that change. i think it's fucked up that you're pro a small amount of change but so utterly blindly and aggressively against anyone that wants a different amount of change than you. you must be a god in your world view, which oddly enough is a juvenile one.