i'm surprised no one "official" has weighted in on this thread yet
Printable View
i'm surprised no one "official" has weighted in on this thread yet
i disagree. copying credit card information (without the owners consent) is stealing, and thus illegal. and credit card fraud is theft
the reason i'm giving this example is to show you that theft doesn't necessarily mean something tangible has been stolen, but rather that it can extend to information eg. digital media or personal information
The reason you're giving this example is because it skews the argument from something benign like music or porn which can't be used to compromise one's identity to something that can like CC info. CC info is not analogous to digital media in its function or use and is thus irrelevant to the discussion of file sharing.
Unless you would include, "likes to share things with others that I myself enjoy" a "utility" then no, I haven't. And if that would be included, that still wouldn't have any relevance to it being stealing.
Also utile is an adjective, not a noun.
Just a test. You obviously didn't take Econ (or learn anything, if you did.)
Utility includes precisely what you described.
And a "utile" is a base unit of utility that the cool Econ profs reference.
And then there's every other rationalization you've posted in this thread. Those were clues, too.
The problem is that we're entertaining this bullshit.
Thieves, anti-choice folks, theocrats- somebody starts in with this, the only answer should be a stern "No."
If that doesn't work, maybe a rolled-up newspaper.
Unfortunately nothing in that post or the previous addresses my actual argument or even attempts to refute it. As I already said, "if that would be included, that still wouldn't have any relevance to it being stealing."
All you've made is a smarmy self-aggrandizing post trying to flaunt Econ 101 trivia. In fact by saying "just" a test, you even acknowledge that it was not an attempt to challenge what I said, and nothing more than an attempt to catch my lack of knowledge on something I have no problem admitting I did not know.
*sternly* No.
Good to know your already flawed and irrelevant contributions to this discussion have been minimized to two words. Perhaps we can make it even less next time.
I don't think the "try before you buy" argument is a valid justification to going to free streaming sites. Irregardless of the semantics, the performers lose out on being compensated fairly for their livelihood. Frankly, I don't understand how all the tube sites are even allowed to exist? Do they pay to put the content up and stream it? Do any of my favorite performers get any of the revenue this tube site or that tube site generates? Personally, I think it sucks. And why not pay? It's cheaper than ever and you can download all you want legally and in good conscience. So what if you get a klunker every now and then? For 20 bucks a month I see all the porn I can saturate myself with and can know that I'm not stealing, infringing, pirating,.... <insert your own chosen verb>....