Indian Piracy Notice Threatens Torrent Users With 3-Year Prison Sentence

[HardOCP News]

Being threatened with a three year prison sentence for piracy seems to have people in India in a panic. You know, there is a fool proof way to prevent this from happening but not many people seem to know what it is.

Blocking torrent portals and other pirate sites is nothing new in India, but a recently updated blocking message is causing panic among torrenters. According to a new blocking notification, torrent users face a prison sentence up to three years and a hefty fine if they continue downloading copyright infringing content.

 

[JL6speed]

Yes, because sending them to prison, thus preventing them from working and potentially being able to afford what they were pirating, is a great solution. People don't always pirate because they enjoy pirating. They do it because what they are pirating is overpriced.

 

[DrLobotomy]

I just thought about watching a show for free. I am going to go turn myself in and get 3 hots and a cot with bubba and watch a show on TV in jail that I did not pay for.

 

[amddragonpc]

I bet they would stop pirating content if the punishment is to be burned alive by their spouse.

 

[Stryke1983]

Yes, because sending them to prison, thus preventing them from working and potentially being able to afford what they were pirating, is a great solution. People don't always pirate because they enjoy pirating. They do it because what they are pirating is overpriced.

So as a luxury item you have the nice option of not buying it when it isn't worth it's price for you. That way you save the money and if demand goes down enough the price will drop. Not considering a luxury item to be good value doesn't mean you have the right to steal it though.

I get the argument that some punishments can be disproportionate. But the argument that a luxury item is too expensive so that automatically makes it OK for me to steal it is just an incredible twisting of logic so a person can justify their actions.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

So as a luxury item you have the nice option of not buying it when it isn't worth it's price for you. That way you save the money and if demand goes down enough the price will drop. Not considering a luxury item to be good value doesn't mean you have the right to steal it though.

I get the argument that some punishments can be disproportionate. But the argument that a luxury item is too expensive so that automatically makes it OK for me to steal it is just an incredible twisting of logic so a person can justify their actions.

We've been over this many times but what we are talking about is copyright infringement and not theft. They are two completely different things.

What you've presented here is a moral argument which is rather irrelevant before morals are completely subjective. There is no proof that any financial harm is done by someone using a copyrighted work without paying for it especially when it's considered that these industries have been making money hand over fist even as P2P filesharing has become extremely prominent. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about music, movies, games, or software, there will always be people who use them without paying. If you make a copyrighted work and no one obtains unauthorized versions of it then it means that no one cares about it or that it just isn't very good.

What JL6speed is saying is that lawsuits and criminal penalties are not the answer. I think we've seen enough to come to that conclusion.

 

[Derangel]

We've been over this many times but what we are talking about is copyright infringement and not theft. They are two completely different things.

What you've presented here is a moral argument which is rather irrelevant before morals are completely subjective. There is no proof that any financial harm is done by someone using a copyrighted work without paying for it especially when it's considered that these industries have been making money hand over fist even as P2P filesharing has become extremely prominent. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about music, movies, games, or software, there will always be people who use them without paying. If you make a copyrighted work and no one obtains unauthorized versions of it then it means that no one cares about it or that it just isn't very good.

What JL6speed is saying is that lawsuits and criminal penalties are not the answer. I think we've seen enough to come to that conclusion.

Morals are not completely subjective. Look up the concept of moral universalism. If you have to justify something to make it "right" then you are acting immorally.

 

[modi123]

They do it because what they are pirating is overpriced.

.. and it seems the price for that little self protest three years prison time. If you consider something over priced it that doesn't entitle you to just take it with out paying. If you believe product X is over priced then don't pay for it and move it, or find it through a discounted legitimate channel.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Morals are not completely subjective. Look up the concept of moral universalism. If you have to justify something to make it "right" then you are acting immorally.

I'm afraid that they are, my good man.

Moral universalism is a rather meaningless term and it doesn't change the fact that morals are based on personal taste and personal judgment. That's what makes them subjective.

Right and wrong are also based on personal taste and judgment and hence also subjective. The man-made idea of "moral universalism" doesn't change this. I don't think that anyone is trying to make anything "right" as that would be pointless for the reasons already given.

 

[Derangel]

I'm afraid that they are, my good man.

Moral universalism is a rather meaningless term and it doesn't change the fact that morals are based on personal taste and personal judgment. That's what makes them subjective.

Right and wrong are also based on personal taste and judgment and hence also subjective. The man-made idea of "moral universalism" doesn't change this. I don't think that anyone is trying to make anything "right" as that would be pointless for the reasons already given.

Your conscience is subjective and varies from person to person. Whether or not you feel guilty about acting immortal does not change the morality of the action itself. Ethically speaking taking something without paying for it is wrong. There are very specific circumstances where that is mitigated by more important factors, but the act itself is still wrong. All morals and ethics are man-made, the entire idea is a human concept, an attempt to explain and guide actions. To guide us to act in ways that are correct and minimize harm.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

.. and it seems the price for that little self protest three years prison time. If you consider something over priced it that doesn't entitle you to just take it with out paying. If you believe product X is over priced then don't pay for it and move it, or find it through a discounted legitimate channel.

And what good do you think is going to come of this? Draconian laws and overbearing punishments which don't fit the crime aren't the answer.

I also don't recall anyone taking anything. Using it, yes, but the copyright holder didn't have anything taken away. People have been enjoying copyrighted works without paying for them since long before P2P file sharing existed and they always will.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Your conscience is subjective and varies from person to person. Whether or not you feel guilty about acting immortal does not change the morality of the action itself. Ethically speaking taking something without paying for it is wrong. There are very specific circumstances where that is mitigated by more important factors, but the act itself is still wrong. All morals and ethics are man-made, the entire idea is a human concept, an attempt to explain and guide actions. To guide us to act in ways that are correct and minimize harm.

That's what you said before but with different vocabulary words.

The fact remains that morals and ethics and what's right and wrong are based on personal taste and personal judgment. The same thing goes for your latest term of "correct". There is not an objective way in which we can measure and quantify these things because they are concepts which have to do with what people believe. Until you can get past that, you've got nothing.

What harm are you talking about? Perhaps you missed the fact that these companies have actually seen their products become even more well-known and successful and have also seen their profits increase even as P2P file sharing has become more prominent.

 

[bloodhawke83]

Gotta keep The Poor poor.

 

[modi123]

And what good do you think is going to come of this? Draconian laws and overbearing punishments which don't fit the crime aren't the answer.

Hopefully bring a sense of reality back to the situation that actions have consequences. You are clearly in the wrong if your action, to seeing something you deem is overpriced, is to firmly grasp your entitled nature and steal it versus going with out.

I also don't recall anyone taking anything. Using it, yes, but the copyright holder didn't have anything taken away.

Blah, blah, blah.. "Insert more my entitlement is more important than content creators." Content creators put a price tag and assign a distribution route for their work. Folks who steal that tell the content creators "well... fffffuuuuuucccck yoooooouuuuu!". Interacting with content without compensating the creator is theft and wrong. You don't get to enjoy the experience of the ride without buying a ticket.

People have been enjoying copyrighted works without paying for them since long before P2P file sharing existed and they always will.

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong or should have zero consequences.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Hopefully bring a sense of reality back to the situation that actions have consequences. You are clearly in the wrong if your action, to seeing something you deem is overpriced, is to firmly grasp your entitled nature and steal it versus going with out.

Right, because that always works. Tell me about how prohibition stopped people from consuming alcohol or how mandatory sentencing stopped people from using and selling drugs. I'll save you the trouble: you're not going to be able to because those things didn't happen.

Blah, blah, blah.. "Insert more my entitlement is more important than content creators." Content creators put a price tag and assign a distribution route for their work. Folks who steal that tell the content creators "well... fffffuuuuuucccck yoooooouuuuu!". Interacting with content without compensating the creator is theft and wrong. You don't get to enjoy the experience of the ride without buying a ticket.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and get an attitude all you want but that doesn't change anything. For the last time it's not theft but copyright infringement. You are using the term "theft" completely out of context. If you went into a court of law and referred to it as theft the other person's attorney would object, it would be upheld, and if you continued to do so, you'd be held in contempt of court.

Wrong? Again, that's subjective. There are also many cases of people enjoying things without paying for them. Ever watched a movie or played a game at someone else's house or used sofware on someone else's computer that you didn't pay for?

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong or should have zero consequences.

Again, when are you going to understand that wrong is subjective? Have you ever eaten pork or had sex outside of marriage? There are millions of people who believe that those things are wrong along with a myriad of other things. I'll be expecting your apology.

As far as it having zero consequences, when did anyone say that? I said that the consequences should fit what's being done. It's one thing when someone profits from a copyright holder's work such as distributing their works for a profit but downloading something for personal use is a far cry from that.

 

[modi123]

Who is talking about prohibition? There is a legitimate means to access the IP. Use it or don't and go without. You are not entitled to it.

well thank the good man Jesus we are on a message board and not a court room. You clearly understand that theft is the shortened version for 'copyright infringment' or 'digital theft'. You, the pirate, have something you are not supposed to because you failed to tacit agreement between consumer and creator.

Wrong is subjective? I call bullshit. If you don't buy the ticket you don't take the ride. It's very plain, and very simple. If you do not respect the content creator you don't get access to their work. To do otherwise is plainly wrong.

 

[Ducman69]

Morals are not completely subjective. Look up the concept of moral universalism.

That's just a concept though, like the concept of "world peace", a flawed idea with no root in reality. Even if most people would agree on even the most basic moral premise (like "thou shalt not murder"), you would have disagreements on what constitutes a person.

A Roman soldier might be the most steadfast moral rock of his time, but he wouldn't consider killing Gauls "murder", nor would he consider taking their property by force "stealing", or even consider his captured Germanic slaves as people, and apply "universal" moral codes he would to fellow citizens on them.

Or if you need a modern example, even if everyone agrees that murder is wrong, is it wrong to murder in self-defense, or is a fetus a person for an abortion to count as murder? Moral relativism is real, yo.

But even saying that, I do believe in my way of life and drawing a line in the sand and shouting like Picard and saying "THIS FAR! NO FURTHER!" because my own moral beliefs are right to me and will be defended in this land.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Love that message (to those that RTFA) "The URL has been blocked under the authorization of the Competent Government Authority" as opposed to what we have here which is the Incompetent Government Authority?

 

[Derangel]

That's just a concept though, like the concept of "world peace", a flawed idea with no root in reality. Even if most people would agree on even the most basic moral premise (like "thou shalt not murder"), you would have disagreements on what constitutes a person.

A Roman soldier might be the most steadfast moral rock of his time, but he wouldn't consider killing Gauls "murder", nor would he consider taking their property by force "stealing", or even consider his captured Germanic slaves as people, and apply "universal" moral codes he would to fellow citizens on them.

It's all justifications. "They aren't people therefor I don't have to treat them in a kind manner" is nothing more than a poor justification to ease one's conscience as they commit atrocities.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

Morals are not completely subjective. Look up the concept of moral universalism. If you have to justify something to make it "right" then you are acting immorally.

If countless millions of people are doing something "wrong" then should it be wrong? Keep in mind we are talking about copying data and not murder or crimes against children.

 

[modi123]

If countless millions of people are doing something "wrong" then should it be wrong?

Yes.

 

[Derangel]

If countless millions of people are doing something "wrong" then should it be wrong? Keep in mind we are talking about copying data and not murder or crimes against children.

Yes. People deserve to be paid for their work. Video games and movies aren't life necessities. You do not need them to live. If you are able to legally buy them then piracy is nothing more than selfishness. You are doing nothing but serving yourself and your own vices.

 

[pxc]

Unlike rape in India, circumventing torrent site blocks is a serious offense.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Unlike rape in India, circumventing torrent site blocks is a serious offense.

They have their priorities, man....

But, really, is rape really wrong? I mean it is kind of subjective. If millions are doing it, is it really "wrong"? (I'M NOT SERIOUS!)

Pirating shit is wrong. You're using something without paying for it. The punishment is way too high for the crime. I really don't care if you pirate or not. I don't anymore. I'm not better than someone that does pirate. And pirates aren't any worse than anyone else. I don't think it's cool, but I'm not going to look down on you. I just don't care. It does affect with with higher prices, DRM, etc.., but it's not going to stop. Rather than extreme punish pirates, just leave them be. Give incentives to be legit....

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Who is talking about prohibition? There is a legitimate means to access the IP. Use it or don't and go without. You are not entitled to it.

i was responding to this statement which you made: Hopefully bring a sense of reality back to the situation that actions have consequences.

I was giving you an example of how that doesn't apply and why punishments which don't fit the crime aren't the answer and indeed cause more harm than good.

Why do you continue to bring up that people aren't entitled to it? Where did anyone ever make that point? This is a strawman.

well thank the good man Jesus we are on a message board and not a court room.

It doesn't matter because what we are discussing is a legal matter.

You clearly understand that theft is the shortened version for 'copyright infringment' or 'digital theft'. You, the pirate, have something you are not supposed to because you failed to tacit agreement between consumer and creator.

No, it's not. I suggest you look up the meaning of theft and the meaning of copyright infringement. They are two completely different things.The same goes for piracy. Piracy is legally defined as murder and pillage on the high seas and has nothing to do with music, movies, games, software, or copyright infringement.

Wrong is subjective? I call bullshit. If you don't buy the ticket you don't take the ride. It's very plain, and very simple. If you do not respect the content creator you don't get access to their work. To do otherwise is plainly wrong.

You can call whatever you like but the point that what's right and wrong is based on personal taste and personal judgment and comes down to what people believe. We simply don't have a way to objectively quantity and measure morality or what's right or wrong.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

They have their priorities, man....

But, really, is rape really wrong? I mean it is kind of subjective. If millions are doing it, is it really "wrong"? (I'M NOT SERIOUS!)

We can prove that rape causes physical and mental harm to people. We can't say the same for the financial effects of using a copyrighted work without paying for it as the evidence doesn't support it.

Pirating shit is wrong. You're using something without paying for it. The punishment is way too high for the crime. I really don't care if you pirate or not. I don't anymore. I'm not better than someone that does pirate. And pirates aren't any worse than anyone else. I don't think it's cool, but I'm not going to look down on you. I just don't care. It does affect with with higher prices, DRM, etc.., but it's not going to stop. Rather than extreme punish pirates, just leave them be. Give incentives to be legit....

Piracy which is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas does harm people and the evidence supports this. The thing is that this has nothing to do with copyrighted works or infringing on those copyrights. You are using something without paying for it when you watch a movie or play a game which someone else paid for without paying for it yourself. You are doing the same thing when you watch a copyrighted video on Youtube without the consent of the copyright holder.

 

[Ducman69]

It's all justifications. "They aren't people therefor I don't have to treat them in a kind manner" is nothing more than a poor justification to ease one's conscience as they commit atrocities.

In your opinion, as again we are talking about the most morally founded Roman citizen here, who wouldn't dream of doing anything outside that code. Generally morality revolves around doing what is good and healthy for society, and murdering foreigners and turning others into slaves and stealing all their crap is good for Roman society, and thus morally sound. Murdering, stealing from, and enslaving other Roman citizens though would be unquestionably immoral though, even though its arguably the same thing.

Same with theft... if I see you have a really nice landscape design on your front lawn, and I copy it, is it theft? You still have your landscaping, same as before, it wasn't taken from you. Some will say that is theft, others genuinely believe its not, or at the very least not on the same tier. Moral relativism.

 

[Derangel]

In your opinion, as again we are talking about the most morally founded Roman citizen here, who wouldn't dream of doing anything outside that code. Generally morality revolves around doing what is good and healthy for society, and murdering foreigners and turning others into slaves and stealing all their crap is good for Roman society, and thus morally sound. Murdering, stealing from, and enslaving other Roman citizens though would be unquestionably immoral though, even though its arguably the same thing.

Same with theft... if I see you have a really nice landscape design on your front lawn, and I copy it, is it theft? You still have your landscaping, same as before, it wasn't taken from you. Some will say that is theft, others genuinely believe its not, or at the very least not on the same tier. Moral relativism.

Because that is what they were raised/taught to think. It's very easy to manipulate groups into following your beliefs and doing what they otherwise wouldn't. They were taught that those people weren't real people and that they could see them as different, as sub-human. What they did would now days be considered a crime against humanity. Something to be tried and punished for. Rome wasn't exactly a hub of philosophical discussion and exploration either. Maybe if it was more like Greece during that time some attitudes would have changed. Not that Greece wasn't without it's own serious faults. People committing horrible acts in the past does not change that they're horrible acts. We have a better understanding of them now and a different perspective on the situation. We can understand why they were wrong and understand why it happened.

 

[modi123]

Why do you continue to bring up that people aren't entitled to it? Where did anyone ever make that point? This is a strawman.

That would be the only reason folks would go out of their way to pirate IP. They believe they are entitled to the content regardless of content creator.

You can call whatever you like but the point that what's right and wrong is based on personal taste and personal judgment and comes down to what people believe. We simply don't have a way to objectively quantity and measure morality or what's right or wrong.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong. If you are going to segue this into 'property rights do not exist' well, what ever. I am not certain if you are taking the stance as an actual legit core belief of yours, or to just to push around an argument, but right and wrong do exist. The whole 'law' thing exists to put up boundaries. In this case - content creator has IP stolen and used without due compensation => wrong.

 

[Ur_Mom]

We can prove that rape causes physical and mental harm to people. We can't say the same for the financial effects of using a copyrighted work without paying for it as the evidence doesn't support it.

There are a lot of crimes that you cannot prove causes harm to people. Yet, we as a society agreed that they are crimes. Physical and mental harm isn't the only thing that makes things a crime these days. Whether or not you believe it should be that way is a different story. Doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, if it's the law - breaking it makes you a criminal. There are many 'victimless' crimes that I really don't agree with. But, there are laws that say they are crimes. My opinion doesn't make me immune to the law....

Piracy which is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas does harm people and the evidence supports this. The thing is that this has nothing to do with copyrighted works or infringing on those copyrights. You are using something without paying for it when you watch a movie or play a game which someone else paid for without paying for it yourself. You are doing the same thing when you watch a copyrighted video on Youtube without the consent of the copyright holder.

Piracy as defined by the subject of this thread. Trying to go for the original definition is deflecting. If you want to use that a defense, you've lost. That's petty. I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Copyrighted works have a license. You cannot use it for commercial use (charge for viewing), etc.. I can legally watch it at someone else's house without paying for it. YouTube - it's still breaking copyright rules, which is why they remove it if it's breaking copyright laws.

Pirate all you want, I don't care. It's still not legal. But, it's like socialism - you want someone else to do the hard work and pay for it while you get to enjoy it for free. You may not have bought it in the first place, sure. But, you did download it. So, it obviously has some value to you....

When I pirated stuff, it was because I didn't want to pay for it. I had access to it otherwise. I could afford it. I just didn't want to pay for it. It was quick and easy to just download it. It wasn't theft of a physical thing. But, I was circumventing the use of that license to view the media.

I don't care if others pirate, either. We all have/had our reasons. Be it we wanted stuff for free (me) or you think you're sticking it to the man, or protesting the law, or whatever else is used to justify it.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Video games and movies aren't life necessities. You do not need them to live.

Just to play the devil's advocate here...

How does this argument play out when said video game and movie makers push the idea that they in fact are necessities of life? i.e. advertisements crammed down your throat.

 

[Derangel]

Just to play the devil's advocate here...

How does this argument play out when said video game and movie makers push the idea that they in fact are necessities of life? i.e. advertisements crammed down your throat.

Simple: They play no part in sustaining life. A video game does not give you food, shelter, water, companionship. For some people they provide a means for those things, but then they become part of a job.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

There are a lot of crimes that you cannot prove causes harm to people.

I know this but that has nothing to do with the point that I was making. I was addressing your statement regarding rape and why the matter of whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.

Yet, we as a society agreed that they are crimes. Physical and mental harm isn't the only thing that makes things a crime these days. Whether or not you believe it should be that way is a different story. Doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, if it's the law - breaking it makes you a criminal.
There are many 'victimless' crimes that I really don't agree with. But, there are laws that say they are crimes. My opinion doesn't make me immune to the law....

Your point? When did I make any claims to the contrary? I've already admitted that it's illegal but that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed in the issue of whether or not it's right wrong which is subjective and has no bearing on the matter.

Piracy as defined by the subject of this thread. Trying to go for the original definition is deflecting. If you want to use that a defense, you've lost. That's petty.

What part of "piracy is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas" do you not understand? You can easily find this in US code.

Iit's not deflecting. It's what the law says. Do you remember what that means? If you were suing someone for copyright infringement and you referred to it as "piracy" or "theft", their attorney would object and it would be upheld. If you continued to do so, you'd be held in contempt and possibly be taken into custody. Tell me, who would have lost at that point? Whether you like it or not, the judge would shut you down every time.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Copyrighted works have a license. You cannot use it for commercial use (charge for viewing), etc.. I can legally watch it at someone else's house without paying for it. YouTube - it's still breaking copyright rules, which is why they remove it if it's breaking copyright laws.

How about addressing what I actually said instead of using strawman arguments? I never stated that any of this wasn't true and I'm not making any cases about the legality of it. I'm stating that trying to make a moral case out of it based on whether it's right or wrong is pointless because morality and what's right or wrong are all subjective.

Pirate all you want, I don't care. It's still not legal. But, it's like socialism - you want someone else to do the hard work and pay for it while you get to enjoy it for free. You may not have bought it in the first place, sure. But, you did download it. So, it obviously has some value to you....

When I pirated stuff, it was because I didn't want to pay for it. I had access to it otherwise. I could afford it. I just didn't want to pay for it. It was quick and easy to just download it. It wasn't theft of a physical thing. But, I was circumventing the use of that license to view the media.

I don't care if others pirate, either. We all have/had our reasons. Be it we wanted stuff for free (me) or you think you're sticking it to the man, or protesting the law, or whatever else is used to justify it.

That's all very nice but it has nothing to do with anything that I've said.

 

[rezerekted]

FBI has been threatening us with 5 years for pirating a single movie for years so 3 years is not so bad.

 

[M76]

Yes, because sending them to prison, thus preventing them from working and potentially being able to afford what they were pirating, is a great solution. People don't always pirate because they enjoy pirating. They do it because what they are pirating is overpriced.

You started out so well, but you went off course somewhere in the middle. So I fixed it for you:

Yes, because sending them to prison, thus preventing them from working and contributing to the GDP is a great solution.

Because why not increase the economic harm they cause by a few magnitudes?

Instead of them working creating GDP, paying bills and paying taxes, while pirating a few odd movies. Let's imprison them which costs taxpayer money, and where they contribute absolutely nothing to the GDP or tax income.

 

[Ducman69]

Maybe if it was more like Greece during that time some attitudes would have changed.

Like, more homosexual pedophilia?

 

[Ur_Mom]

Your point? When did I make any claims to the contrary? I've already admitted that it's illegal but that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed in the issue of whether or not it's right wrong which is subjective and has no bearing on the matter.

For some people, murder is fine. Stealing is fine. Being subjective, it's really a never-ending thing. That's why we have laws from a collective people. A majority agree that it's not moral and we go with it. Is it right or wrong? Depends on the person, sure. But, in a civilized world, we can't just go off what one person thinks is right or wrong.

If we're arguing if we think it's right or wrong morally, we might as well shut down the thread. There is no right or wrong answer. Like you said - it's all subjective. You can justify anything or make good deeds look bad if you wanted to. It's never ending.

What part of "piracy is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas" do you not understand? You can easily find this in US code.

Iit's not deflecting. It's what the law says. Do you remember what that means? If you were suing someone for copyright infringement and you referred to it as "piracy" or "theft", their attorney would object and it would be upheld. If you continued to do so, you'd be held in contempt and possibly be taken into custody. Tell me, who would have lost at that point? Whether you like it or not, the judge would shut you down every time.

That's dope. Wait, I don't mean the literal definition of dope... This forum is not a court of law. We know exactly what piracy means in this context. And it has nothing to do with Captain Jack Sparrow or Michael Bolton.

That's all very nice but it has nothing to do with anything that I've said.

That's cool, but that part wasn't in response to what you've said. Maybe I should have made individual posts to make it easier to read... I just prefer a single post with multiple paragraphs. That's just me, though. Subjective, too!

 

[Derangel]

Like, more homosexual pedophilia?

Greece had it's own share of problems, but modern philosophy all stems from people like Plato and Socrates. As does a lot of modern psychology since it has it's roots in philosophical exploration both from Greek and Chinese philosophers, among others.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

For some people, murder is fine. Stealing is fine. Being subjective, it's really a never-ending thing. That's why we have laws from a collective people. A majority agree that it's not moral and we go with it. Is it right or wrong? Depends on the person, sure. But, in a civilized world, we can't just go off what one person thinks is right or wrong.

If we're arguing if we think it's right or wrong morally, we might as well shut down the thread. There is no right or wrong answer. Like you said - it's all subjective. You can justify anything or make good deeds look bad if you wanted to. It's never ending.

Yeah? And?

For the last time, I'm not arguing against whether or not it's legal nor did I make any claims about us going off of what someone thinks is right or wrong. That's why I've stated that making a moral argument is pointless because morals and ethics are subjective. As far as the legality of it, the law doesn't make it the best thing for society, either. Keep in mind that for a long time, it was legal to own people and that up until very recently, the law stated that a man didn't need his wife's consent and couldn't rape her.

That's dope. Wait, I don't mean the literal definition of dope... This forum is not a court of law. We know exactly what piracy means in this context. And it has nothing to do with Captain Jack Sparrow or Michael Bolton.

That doesn't change the fact that the term is being used out of context. You are the one who brought the law into this. If you're going to do that then it's important to use the correct legal terminology. What we are discussing here isn't theft or piracy. Is it that difficult to say "copyright infringement?" If some teenagers egged your car and tp'd your house then the correct term would be "vandalism" and not "terrorism". I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

ITT I learned that taking things and not paying for them is not wrong since morals are subjective. I haven't seen this kind of attempt at justifying pirating yet, so bravo for adding to the list of stupid excuses.