Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

[Trans-Promo]

I have a scenario:

Say your mom goes into a porn shop and shuvs a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube and walks out of the store without paying. When she gets home she takes the shitty hand out and slaps it on your dad's face ( he likes it even though she stoled it ) He then accepts it as a gift and starts sucking the thing unwashed. Only later to shuv it in his own asshole with some Crisco.

Now let's say your dad goes to his mom's house and takes out the fisting hand out of his ass and puts it on the dinner table in front of the whole family...

Would your grandma consider it stolen?

[Nicole Dupre]

What's not "cut and dry" is the excuse you're using.

Theft, on the other hand, is VERY cut and dry.

[SmashysmashY]

Sadist, masochist whatever that's not my interest obviously. The point is it's uncivil to address people like that when they didn't do anything to you first. So just like you think my privacy isn't cut and dry I don't think robbery is cut and dry in this situation.

[Nicole Dupre]

I have a scenario:

Say your mom goes into a porn shop and shuvs a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube and walks out of the store without paying. When she gets home she takes the shitty hand out and slaps it on your dad's face ( he likes it even though she stoled it ) He then accepts it as a gift and starts sucking the thing unwashed. Only later to shuv it in his own asshole with some Crisco.

Now let's say your dad goes to his mom's house and takes out the fisting hand out of his ass and puts it on the dinner table in front of the whole family...

Would your grandma consider it stolen?

I have no idea, but the part about someone's "mom going into a porn shop and shoving a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube" makes my pussy moist.

Wait. What was the question again? lol

[Instrumental]

Stop and read back your question...

*You BUY a CD, upload it to you computer or MP3 - that is not in violation

*You give that CD to someone as a gift - Giving gifts is not in violation

Making a copy with intent to distribute is illegal as well

*That person starts making copies and selling them - VIOLATION

I'm not sure why you're asking me to re-read my question. I can't really tell if you have any qualms with the scenario I gave. Are you fine with it? And if so, are you okay with the person instead of receiving a CD as a gift, downloading the album from the person who did it. If not why? The end result is the same. If your only issue is in the person profiting from distributing the media that's fine, I don't agree with that either but then that leads to why one would persecute those that merely share the media with no profit involved (i.e. p2p networks). And why is copying with the intent to distribute to another person wrong if giving the album to someone as a gift is okay? The other person is getting the media for free, the artist receives no profit from it whatsoever and the original person who bought it would still have the album on their computer to use for his or herself.

And then you can go even further and get into people who buy a CD and when they grow tired of it, sell it to someone else. In that scenario and the aforementioned one, people are gaining access to the media without supporting the creator of it. Is that wrong? why or why not?

[Trans-Promo]

I'm not sure why you're asking me to re-read my question. I can't really tell if you have any qualms with the scenario I gave. Are you fine with it? And if so, are you okay with the person instead of receiving a CD as a gift, downloading the album from the person who did it. If not why? The end result is the same. If your only issue is in the person profiting from distributing the media that's fine, I don't agree with that either but then that leads to why one would persecute those that merely share the media with no profit involved (i.e. p2p networks). And why is copying with the intent to distribute to another person wrong if giving the album to someone as a gift is okay? The other person is getting the media for free, the artist receives no profit from it whatsoever and the original person who bought it would still have the album on their computer to use for his or herself.

And then you can go even further and get into people who buy a CD and when they grow tired of it, sell it to someone else. In that scenario and the aforementioned one, people are gaining access to the media without supporting the creator of it. Is that wrong? why or why not?

I have a scenario - Sit on an egg and wait for it to hatch

[Nicole Dupre]

I am sorry Nicole, did he, the thief, just cop an attitude with me? That's just one of the funniest things on this forum so far.

I was keeping my mouth shut about your childish 5 year old analogies but after that one... you dug your own grave babe.

Actually, Danielle, he was copping an attitude with you.

Usually they go for me first. My bad. lol

[SmashysmashY]

Well, since you obviously don't give a shit about privacy, can I ask if there is anything about copyright that you consider to be bad at all?

Did you know that in the last 99 years only 1 years worth of published material entered the public domain?

[BellaBellucci]

an IP address, attached to a torrent file is not a sealed envelope. Its a fingerprint on a burglar's tool that can be traced to its owner and no one can claim leaving their fingerprints at a crime scene is somehow private communication.

FK

Except that an IP address can't point to a particular person. Some are even dynamic so they may not even point to a particular household or business. With so much IP sharing going on, you don't think a witch hunt is a violation of privacy? And sometimes against innocent parties even?

You have to find stolen property in the possession of somebody to charge them in criminal court. Why should it be different in a civil suit? So you're saying that real criminals have more rights than casual torrent downloaders?

~BB~

[Instrumental]

I have a scenario - Sit on an egg and wait for it to hatch

O_o Wow. Not sure that was warranted.