BF2S Forums ThePirateBay owners may face prison time

Parker wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

So you're saying the phone book companies need to track down every possible drug dealer and remove their number from the phone book?

not at all.



here, lets see if you can get it this time;

Parker wrote:

sticking with that analogy...

a phone book is not illegal.
having a persons number in that book is not illegal.


but if that person was like, "HEY I SELL DOPE, CALL 111-111-1111 FOR THE HOOK UP.", that would be illegal...which is basically what these guys are doing.

and im still waiting for that point.

maybe try a different analogy?

No, you see, it is the phone book company telling people that there are drug dealers within. TPB is the phone book comany, not the drug dealers.

Parker wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

No, you see, it is the phone book company telling people that there are drug dealers within. TPB is the phone book comany, not the drug dealers.

i know that.

and they are basically saying "THIS PERSON RIGHT HERE IS WHO YOU GET DRUGS FROM, NOW BUY THEM!".



that is illegal.


like i said, maybe a different analogy?

No, they're saying "THERE ARE PLENTY OF NUMBERS TO DRUG DEALERS IN HERE. IF YOU SEARCH GOOD ENOUGH, YOU'LL FIND THEM."

Isn't the remaining charge against them "assisting making available copyright material"?

Now, I'm no "anti-piracy" guy, I mean I download stuff all the time, but I don't see how they can say they aren't assisting making it available.

I dunno, I guess we'll see how it goes but I don't know how they are going to get out of that.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Parker wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

No, you see, it is the phone book company telling people that there are drug dealers within. TPB is the phone book comany, not the drug dealers.

i know that.

and they are basically saying "THIS PERSON RIGHT HERE IS WHO YOU GET DRUGS FROM, NOW BUY THEM!".



that is illegal.


like i said, maybe a different analogy?

No, they're saying "THERE ARE PLENTY OF NUMBERS TO DRUG DEALERS IN HERE. IF YOU SEARCH GOOD ENOUGH, YOU'LL FIND THEM."

No, They're saying "MOST OF THE NUMBERS LISTED ARE FOR DRUG DEALERS. BUT IF YOU SEARCH GOOD ENOUGH YOU'LL FIND SOME NUMBERS THAT ARE NOT"

Parker wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Parker wrote:

well either way, it landed them in court.



its not as legal as the liar made it out to be.

It's a grey zone. There are those too, you know.

i do know.


there are also prisons, fines and court costs.

none of which are in any gray zone.

Which sucks for the prisons, fines and court costs.

Parker wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Which sucks for the prisons, fines and court costs.

nope.

those are all in place to hold people accountable for their actions...


you know, accountability?


ah, never mind...i dont want to spoil the surprise for you.

ill let reality do that.

I get the point you're making to Freezer about reality and accountability...

But, to be fair, in my own example of piracy- reality and accountability will never coincide. Even if I stopped downloading tomorrow, I will make off with around £30,000 worth of media that I have not paid for and never will pay for. I will never be held accountable for that. Suits me just fine .

i can let you "borrow" some cds

What I still find funny after reading through all these pages, is that people think the artists and recording companies are losing money, when they are in fact not. You can't lose what you never had to begin with. I've said this time and time again, but yet people still don't get it.

90% of the shit I pirated I wouldn't buy in the first place, so they weren't ever going to get the money either way. You guys associate pirating with yanking a copy off a shelf, which is not an accurate analogy. If you steal a copy off a shelf, people ARE losing money. The people you stole it from paid for it and didn't get anything for it. Pirating, on the other hand, is stealing something that technically never existed. Nobody specifically paid for your copy, so nobody loses anything. They only lost a potential sale, but they never lost money.

That really fails to address the fact you are still stealing something from the person who made the media.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-02-24 19:34:13)

If they don't want you to have what you are taking, it isn't sharing. You can use whatever euphemism you wish to justify it to yourself, but that doesn't alter the fact you are stealing. Grow the fuck up and consider this with a clear head.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-02-24 19:43:17)

We aren't referring to sharing versus stealing between two secondary users, but stealing from the producer of the intellectual property in question.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-02-24 19:59:12)

CrazeD wrote:

That's not how it works.

Someone buys it, then distributes it (sharing).

It's the same as my analogy, just on a bigger scale.

Soon I bet they'll start printing stuff like "For one viewer only. Please purchase another copy or buy a group licenese if you wish to view this material as a group" on DVDs.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-02-24 21:19:31)

AussieReaper wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

That's not how it works.

Someone buys it, then distributes it (sharing).

It's the same as my analogy, just on a bigger scale.

Soon I bet they'll start printing stuff like "For one viewer only. Please purchase another copy or buy a group licenese if you wish to view this material as a group" on DVDs.

This video is copyright and not intended for public viewing, etc buses, etc

It's already happened.

See, this is exactly why people pirate the shit to begin with.

If you want to minimize piracy, make a worthwhile product, without fucking retarded DRM. On the subject of games, give a presentable demo...not something you throw together in 10 minutes to give the slightest peek possible, such as CoD4 and their shitty single player demo. If it's a MP game, give a MP demo.

Until then, people will pirate, a lot, and there's nothing they can do about it.