[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

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)

Obviously I was using copyright as a synonym for ownership for art. As anyone can see from my past posts, I had no misconceptions about whether or not you knew that there are copyright laws.

The only way artist's intent can matter at all is if the artist OWNS THE ART.

THUS YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU BELIEVE THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OWNERSHIP OF ART.

If you believe it is wrong to profit off of someone else's art, THAT ADMITS THAT SOMEONE OWNS THE ART THEY MAKE.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to punish anyone for profiting off of art that is owned by no one.

I have not misquoted you. I am saying that the logical conclusion of your stated beliefs lead to an inevitable result that you do not agree to. The only way for me to have misquoted you is to imply that you consciously acknowledge that ownership of art exists. Since 1) I had to tell you the impact of your own words, and 2) whether or not ownership exists is the point of contention, it is very clear that I did not believe the you consciously acknowledged the existence ownership of art.

Also, it's funny how you keep trying to be condescending. I haven't taken that bait once. Doesn't that make you a little angry, after how much you clearly care about me yelling at you?

Originally Posted by yoav

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

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.

As I have already stated, you cannot tell me why my changes to the current law are any less reasonable than yours, and I have shown how yours are far less reasonable than mine.

Originally Posted by yoav

i thought you were pro riaa for so long because you kept saying you agree with the outcome of the case.

I said page 1 that I don't agree with the RIAA. You're mind-numbingly stupid.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

No one has ever been able to acquire copies of most of the art in the world without leaving their home. There is no precedent for this, do not try to pretend that there is.

Oh, and your attempt to claim I misquoted you?

Originally Posted by yoav

i believe the system needs to change, on an idealistic level, but also on a feasibility level, there is no sustainable or effective way to enforce copyright law. DRM doesn't work, spying on peoples computers should be illegal, etc.

Do you know what the word "needs" means?

You were very clear about your use of the word "needs". In other posts, you capitalized it. "NEEDS to change", you said. That is not a misquote. You said it.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

If communism has been put in place by a democratic vote or by popular demand, the populace has agreed to give up everything they own to communal ownership.

In a society where people can actually own things, however, you will be held accountable for stealing that which is not yours.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

You admit that there is ownership of art, but you refuse to provide any protection for it.

My country isn't a shitty, spineless thief who is hell-bent on promoting his welfare.

Originally Posted by yoav

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

You admit that there is a definition of theft that exists beyond the dictations of any government (see: you saying profiting off of others' art is wrong).

Secondly, you seem to believe that it is illegal to rip CDs in the US. That is only what the RIAA has said, not law.

Show me any case where anyone has been prosecuted for ripping CDs and lost, or declare this part of your argument defeated.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

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

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

I was asking where I had invented or did not understand critical portions of your argument.

You could not show where I do not understand any of your points. You could only come up with one factually inaccurate claim of a misquote, and another feeble attempt at claiming that I believe that you consciously acknowledge that there is ownership of art. That's fucking stupid. If I thought you consciously acknowledge the ownership of art, I wouldn't be arguing against your position on whether or not ownership of art exists.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

Yes, when you claim that I do not understand what you're saying or inventing thing, you are required to show WHY YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

THUS FAR, YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO.

Originally Posted by yoav

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

The fuck is wrong with you?

Dzagama agrees with me. He has said as much in this thread. He is not disputing anything I say. You are alone.

His questions, since he agrees with me, are not trying to poke holes in anything I am saying, and thus have no bearing on my discussion with you. I would also point out that those questions, since he agrees with me, are very likely only directed at you.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

I'm not dodging the question.

I have clearly stated that you have not purchased the rights to see a movie more than once when you pay for a movie ticket.

Originally Posted by yoav

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

Are you really going to try to say that pirating isn't theft because somebody listens to music they bought in the presence of their friends?

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

You're still trying to say there's no difference between millions of listeners and 20.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

Yes.

Originally Posted by yoav

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

You did not dispute what I said about the implications of destroying ownership of art.

You cannot tell me how the inconvenience to the listener is anything less than minor, even by the current system.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

That person stole from the artist.

Originally Posted by yoav

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..

You used capitalism as a support for your argument about worth of digital downloads, and now you have no use for capitalism once I pointed out the supply/demand thing.

The only way it could not be relevant to this argument is if you have forgotten what you have said.

Originally Posted by yoav

b) you're completely wrong and need to read about different styles of government and economics.

What, your little communism example? Yeah, that was a failure.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

POST AN EXAMPLE OF ANYONE BEING SUED OVER RIPPING A CD AND LOSING.

IF YOU CANNOT, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.