Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Now you're just trying to twist things around in a non-sensical manner. Bottom line is it's still theft of a product and how someone can even attempt to try and rationalise it in the idealogy that it simply can't be limited to a number of availability is beyond me.

I was joking calm down.

" to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch."

See, now to me the right stuff is a load of crap, but that's beside the point. Intellectual property is not actual property as far as I'm concerned, simple as that.

If you don't want anyone to be exposed to your ideas and thus keep your thoughts protected, then don't exprses them.

Uh yeah. What exactly was in my post that suggested I wasn't calm? How in the world can intellectual property not be considered property? So you think someone can just take something and make an exact duplicate of it and sell it, give it away, or do whatever they want with it? Hell by those standards the person ripping it off doesn't even have to give the product a new name or make any changes whatsoever to it. Yay! I'm going to go out tomorrow and sell my own console that is exactly a Wii, I'll call it the Wii, it'll play everything that Nintendo's Wii can play, and do everything exactly like a Wii. Woo hoo I'll be rich. Uh yeah that is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

Ever been to China?

Yodariquo said:

Archangel3371 said: 
 

 Uh yeah. What exactly was in my post that suggested I wasn't calm? How in the world can intellectual property not be considered property? So you think someone can just take something and make an exact duplicate of it and sell it, give it away, or do whatever they want with it? Hell by those standards the person ripping it off doesn't even have to give the product a new name or make any changes whatsoever to it. Yay! I'm going to go out tomorrow and sell my own console that is exactly a Wii, I'll call it the Wii, it'll play everything that Nintendo's Wii can play, and do everything exactly like a Wii. Woo hoo I'll be rich.  Uh yeah that is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

And it's still copyright infringement (and in this case trademark infringement) and not theft.

Archangel3371 said:

gamingeek said:

Archangel3371 said:

Ravenprose said:

gamingeek said:

Archangel3371 said:

Woah. Dead Space Extraction on XBLA/PSN for $15? I'd buy that.

How exactly would you play it on 360?

Natal, duh!

Probably. I love my light-gun type games and I'm really itching for some to finally hit the 360.

But you'd have to pay for Natal. Why not just buy the Wii game when it hits a lower price?

Um I don't intend to buy Natal for just this game. I'm hoping it will facilitate other light-gun type games as well as any other type of game I'll want to get also.

If you love lightgun games so much, why haven't you bought the ones on Wii?

Yodariquo said:

No, legal definitions with significantly different legal meanings.  Now the example was to demonstrate a point, but honestly, I don't think it is that different.  Running a bootlegging, for-profit business with actual exchange of money is one thing, but if we're strictly speaking the act of filesharing, I would certainly say that ripping the contents of a DVD onto the web and being fined 1.5 million dollars is roughly equivalent to 10 years for a burrito.

Archangel3371 said:

Yodariquo said:

Archangel3371 said: 
 

 Uh yeah. What exactly was in my post that suggested I wasn't calm? How in the world can intellectual property not be considered property? So you think someone can just take something and make an exact duplicate of it and sell it, give it away, or do whatever they want with it? Hell by those standards the person ripping it off doesn't even have to give the product a new name or make any changes whatsoever to it. Yay! I'm going to go out tomorrow and sell my own console that is exactly a Wii, I'll call it the Wii, it'll play everything that Nintendo's Wii can play, and do everything exactly like a Wii. Woo hoo I'll be rich.  Uh yeah that is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

And it's still copyright infringement (and in this case trademark infringement) and not theft.

 

Whatever. That's hardly an important issue as to my wording. It's still illegal. You people trying to rationalise this type of behavior astounds me. I spend a great deal of money on my entertainment and the thought that others feel they have a right to get it free sickens and disgusts me.

And as a result of me downloading the song Rhythm Emotion, I bought Ouendan and consequently Ouendan 2 and introduced me to Japanese music.  By watching Azumanga Daioh online, I now own that series on DVD, plus subsequently Maburaho, Gantz, Love Hina, Pani Poni Dash, Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex+2nd Gig, Cowboy Bebop.  By downloading Spirited Away, I now own it, and a dozen other Studio Ghibli films and plan on getting the rest.

It's not so damned linear, nor is it "oh it's illegal, therefore it's wrong."  Morality and legality are different things.  It's also pretty well impossible to realistically enforce either.  Oddly enough, I and I doubt Foolz are saying he shouldn't get any punishment whatsoever.  He uploaded one game, that's it.  That is it.  That is not enough to put a man into debt for the entirety of his life.  Sentencing must be proportionate; this is not.

/Off to class

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

And that makes it right how?

Well if the law doesn't matter then I'm not quite sure how taking 1.5million dollars of someone's money for the sake of revenge is morally acceptable.

They're not "taking" 1.5 million dollars from someone for the sake of "revenge" it's a penalty for a crime that was committed.

No, but that is what you were implying you would like to do if a similar injustice was perpertrated against yourself.

Though if was it a crime that Nintendo had to prosecute? It didn't say in the article. If it was thenI hope Nintendo weren't stupid enough to think that this will deter anyone and affect anyone except the guy the prosecuted. Revenge would be a much smarter motive.

But anyway I thought your problem with this case was because of moral matters and not legalities.

And I should really go to bed!

Yodariquo said:

Archangel3371 said:

Yodariquo said:

Archangel3371 said: 

 

 Uh yeah. What exactly was in my post that suggested I wasn't calm? How in the world can intellectual property not be considered property? So you think someone can just take something and make an exact duplicate of it and sell it, give it away, or do whatever they want with it? Hell by those standards the person ripping it off doesn't even have to give the product a new name or make any changes whatsoever to it. Yay! I'm going to go out tomorrow and sell my own console that is exactly a Wii, I'll call it the Wii, it'll play everything that Nintendo's Wii can play, and do everything exactly like a Wii. Woo hoo I'll be rich.  Uh yeah that is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

And it's still copyright infringement (and in this case trademark infringement) and not theft.

 

Whatever. That's hardly an important issue as to my wording. It's still illegal. You people trying to rationalise this type of behavior astounds me. I spend a great deal of money on my entertainment and the thought that others feel they have a right to get it free sickens and disgusts me.

And as a result of me downloading the song Rhythm Emotion, I bought Ouendan and consequently Ouendan 2 and introduced me to Japanese music.  By watching Azumanga Daioh online, I now own that series on DVD, plus subsequently Maburaho, Gantz, Love Hina, Pani Poni Dash, Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex+2nd Gig, Cowboy Bebop.  By downloading Spirited Away, I now own it, and a dozen other Studio Ghibli films and plan on getting the rest.


It's not so damned linear, nor is it "oh it's illegal, therefore it's wrong."  Morality and legality are different things.  It's also pretty well impossible to realistically enforce either.  Oddly enough, I and I doubt Foolz are saying he shouldn't get any punishment whatsoever.  He uploaded one game, that's it.  That is it.  That is not enough to put a man into debt for the entirety of his life.  Sentencing must be proportionate; this is not.


/Off to class

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

And that makes it right how?

Well if the law doesn't matter then I'm not quite sure how taking 1.5million dollars of someone's money for the sake of revenge is morally acceptable.

They're not "taking" 1.5 million dollars from someone for the sake of "revenge" it's a penalty for a crime that was committed.

No, but that is what you were implying you would like to do if a similar injustice was perpertrated against yourself.

Though if was it a crime that Nintendo had to prosecute? It didn't say in the article. If it was thenI hope Nintendo weren't stupid enough to think that this will deter anyone and affect anyone except the guy the prosecuted. Revenge would be a much smarter motive.

But anyway I thought your problem with this case was because of moral matters and not legalities.

And I should really go to bed!

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

And that makes it right how?

Well if the law doesn't matter then I'm not quite sure how taking 1.5million dollars of someone's money for the sake of revenge is morally acceptable.

They're not "taking" 1.5 million dollars from someone for the sake of "revenge" it's a penalty for a crime that was committed.

No, but that is what you were implying you would like to do if a similar injustice was perpertrated against yourself.

Though if was it a crime that Nintendo had to prosecute? It didn't say in the article. If it was thenI hope Nintendo weren't stupid enough to think that this will deter anyone and affect anyone except the guy the prosecuted. Revenge would be a much smarter motive.

But anyway I thought your problem with this case was because of moral matters and not legalities.

And I should really go to bed!

No not about revenge. I just don't see why people should get this expectation that they can get this kind of stuff for free simply because of the nature of it's medium. Again while I think some things like this can benefit some companies and products that's up to them to decide and implement not someone else.

Yet you won't be stopping anyone from getting it for free (hell, the guy might be fined 1.5million, but he's still free to upload or download more games!). Due to the nature of the medium it all so means you're not really going to be able to stop it or have any affect on pirates as a whole, only a small handful individuals.

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

Foolz said:

Archangel3371 said:

And that makes it right how?

Well if the law doesn't matter then I'm not quite sure how taking 1.5million dollars of someone's money for the sake of revenge is morally acceptable.

They're not "taking" 1.5 million dollars from someone for the sake of "revenge" it's a penalty for a crime that was committed.

No, but that is what you were implying you would like to do if a similar injustice was perpertrated against yourself.

Though if was it a crime that Nintendo had to prosecute? It didn't say in the article. If it was thenI hope Nintendo weren't stupid enough to think that this will deter anyone and affect anyone except the guy the prosecuted. Revenge would be a much smarter motive.

But anyway I thought your problem with this case was because of moral matters and not legalities.

And I should really go to bed!

No not about revenge. I just don't see why people should get this expectation that they can get this kind of stuff for free simply because of the nature of it's medium. Again while I think some things like this can benefit some companies and products that's up to them to decide and implement not someone else.

Yet you won't be stopping anyone from getting it for free (hell, the guy might be fined 1.5million, but he's still free to upload or download more games!). Due to the nature of the medium it all so means you're not really going to be able to stop it or have any affect on pirates as a whole, only a small handful individuals.