[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

ah perhaps i used the wrong wording and/or poor grammer, it's not theft that i was trying to convey, but the right to profit off someone else's work without their consent. theft is the wrong word here.

that profiting off someone else's work without their consent is wrong and should be illegal in my model as it violates the artist's intent, however it should be noted my model creates a world were nobody profits off other's work because it's only the application or implementation of the work that has value.

Something cannot be someone's work unless they own it.

If they do not own it, it is not theirs.

Originally Posted by yoav

i disagree with your interpretation

the laws are not explicit, but they are implicit. you likely won't be caught for ripping a cd because how could authorities ever know you did it? that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. and that doing so is considered the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content. and that if the laws are left unaltered and one day the privacy laws or policing technology changes (like when bush took away the right to privacy) it will be easier to find these cases of copyright violation. and whoever stands to benefit will be able to freely convict people based on it.

on the other hand you claim that i'm a thief, a non-us citizen guilty of a us law. how does that work?

As I have just shown with the Audio Home Recording Act, it's not illegal.

Originally Posted by yoav

that's not true, us copyright law very clearly states you're not allowed to make a copy of copyrighted content to a hard drive, even if you choose not to understand the implications, an ipod is a hard drive, and your itunes folder is stored on another hard drive.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by yoav

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts. it's like you want to misunderstand me. furthermore it's not about changing to some arbitrary scheme, i want shit changed back to the way it was when mozart was around. because that system worked, and produced great art. it's this recent copyright fiasco thought up over fear of the printing press, it's the change that copyright brought that i want annulled and art returned to it's natural organic place in the world.

You are continuing to pretend that there is a precedent for pirating. There is not.

Originally Posted by yoav

regardless of what you assume from their vague statement, it was a closing argument, a comment, not a law.

I didn't say it was, you delusional moron.

Originally Posted by yoav

a closing argument is designed to sway a jury, no record company in the usa outside that closing argument have openly advocated the copying or ripping of cds, many have spoken against it, and were even sued at one point for putting drm software that installed onto users' computers when they put a cd in without their consent. you seem to have a problem resolving context.
Labels to dampen CD burning? - CNET News
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
the fact that drm even exists is due to record labels wanting to prevent unauthorized copying of content.

They want to stop copying because of thieves, not because of personal use. Do not try to confuse the two. Your actions have caused harm to the consumers.