Are you illegal? - Page 4

Ming · December 17, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
But downloading music is legal (although uploading it is not).
Are you condoning what the record companies assure us is piracy, even though it is perfectly legal?

That is an argument for lawyers... When it comes to gaming software, there is no argument. It's illegal.

-Jrabbit · December 17, 2003, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

But downloading music is legal.

Are you condoning what the record companies assure us is piracy, even though it is perfectly legal?

The topic is illegal software D/Ls, not music piracy.

Agathon · December 17, 2003, 10:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

That is an argument for lawyers... When it comes to gaming software, there is no argument. It's illegal.

That's quite slippery of you Ming.

You've taken a strong stance legal postivism in this thread and it's a plain fact that in Canada downloading is legal, and probably is so in the US as well.

So if downloading music isn't illegal, then it's not piracy and everything's OK, right?

Agathon · December 17, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

The topic is illegal software D/Ls, not music piracy.

I know, I'm just taking a stand for consistency across the forums.

Ming · December 17, 2003, 10:05

No... you are just arguing a different issue.

That isn't consistency... that's just changing the subject

Agathon · December 17, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
No... you are just arguing a different issue.

That isn't consistency... that's just changing the subject

And you're sticking to that story, right?

Ming · December 17, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
And you're sticking to that story, right?

I'm the one sticking to the topic... you are the one trying to change it after you were proved wrong

Agathon · December 17, 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

I'm the one sticking to the topic... you are the one trying to change it after you were proved wrong

How can you prove me wrong if you are sticking to the original topic? If you are proving me wrong then there is at least the question of applicability of legal positivism to both cases. blah blah blah....

But then again Dan and Mark just don't want to be seen to support music downloading on the site.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 10:17

Ming>

First the arguement was that you'd be prosecuted for this...
Then that you merely could be... that it was technically illegal.
Then that the arguement doesn't include mp3's...

your position looks like a slippery slope to me.

What does "illegal" actually mean, if you aren't prosecuted? That and two bucks'll get you a ride on the subway.

Ming · December 17, 2003, 10:26

No... my position hasn't changed one bit... there is one simple fact that you can not deny...

It is illegal.

You can talk all you want about how it's not enforced, and then argue that that makes it ok... but it doesn't change reality.

General Ludd · December 17, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
No... my position hasn't changed one bit... there is one simple fact that you can not deny...

It is illegal.

That's not much of a position.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 10:31

What reality?

Define why I should care that something is "illegal"

It's just ephemeral if it has no consequence.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 10:33

"Don't do that"

"Why? What are you going to do about it"

"Don't do that"

"Well... I'm doing it... now... what are you going to do about it"

*puts a blindfold on and earplugs in*

Ming · December 17, 2003, 10:41

To follow the law is a personal decision... using your logic, you could justify killing somebody.

However, it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 10:48

Murder has a consequence everywhere. Its illegality "means" something.

Copyright violation doesn't have a consequence everywhere, or even in every situation.

The two concepts aren't comparable.

Illegality is morally relative. A law is in arbitrary creation of society. It only has meaning within the time and space of that society.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 10:49

and even then...

downloading an MP3 in Canada isn't illegal, thus... its justifiable, by your logic.

Ming · December 17, 2003, 10:54

blah blah blah...

The creator/publisher of the software cares about the distribution of THEIR product. They own the rights to it.
Just because some countries don't pursue violators doesn't change the law. The two concepts are comparable...

Illegality is not morally relative... it's a black and white issue.
It's either illegal or legal. You can argue all you want on whether the Law itself is right... but it doesn't change the fact that if you break that law, by definition, you are performing an illegal act. Whether you care if or not is also a different issue... but it doesn't change the facts.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 11:01

and... what does that fact... mean?

its a circular arguement

You break the law, thus you've commited an illegal act.

Right... agreed... and?

What does that actually... mean? Does it mean anything, in a case where that illegality is not prosecuted?

This hypothetical person should feel bad? Should care? Is going to hell?

Ming · December 17, 2003, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
What does that actually... mean? Does it mean anything, in a case where that illegality is not prosecuted?

Yes... it means that it's still illegal

Again... just because it isn't being prosecuted doesn't make it legal. It just means you can break the law and not suffer a penality.

As I've said before, people can behave as they wish. But don't try to justify your acts by outlandish arguments trying to prove that what you do is actually legal. It isn't.

What it means to you is a personal morality issue... If you don't give a damn... fine. But that doesn't make it legal

Spec · December 17, 2003, 11:09

In Canada, downloading music for personnal use is not illegal, as long as you dont share it with other people. So the person who you downloaded it from, the uploader, is illegal. Just like on TV. It is not illegal the record your favorite movie on TV for futur viewing, but it is illegal to make copies of it and sell it for an additional revenue.
On the other hand, it's a whole other matter with software. Downloading software is illegal. Why it is different from movies and music I dont know, but I know it is illegal. We even have inspectors that verify if companies are using real or copied Windows CDs for example.

Spec.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 11:19

I sense you've hit a limit in your arguement.

Illegal is illegal... OK.

but as far as I can tell.. you can't assign any meaning to that illegality.

Personal morality is relative, and thus can't be generalized.

Then we get into another relativity issue.. depent on what copyrighted work we are talking about, like mp3's. or time... in that there wasn't always a law, international or otherwise that applied to software copyright infringement. Such laws were amended after the inception of software creation, and the subsequent software piracy.

Since a society has rolled back a particular law regarding copyright infringement, who's to say that other aspects of copyright infringement law won't also be rolled back in other territories, at other times?

Societies morality changes over time... in various ways... like... slavery, say.

Ming · December 17, 2003, 11:22

You seem to be the one that has reached the limit of your argument. You basic premise now seems to be that since it might change in the future, it isn't illegal now

An d yeah... I am sticking with same argument. If you break the law, you are performing an illegal act.

-Jrabbit · December 17, 2003, 11:22

[

]

The social contract of the society in which we live (yeah, that's another slippery one) calls for its members to agree to live by a mutually agreed set of rules. This creates spheres of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Some parts of those rules are given the force of law in certain geographic locations. Those laws are enforced by Governments. Governments are recognized by members of society in a defined geographic area, and given the power to enforce those laws which are passed by the legal (OK, more-or-less legal) representatives of the people.

The differences being discussed here (MrBaggins, most recent) are between Legal and Acceptable behaviors.

To use Ming's example, we all (generally) agree that murder is Unacceptable in our society. It is also Illegal in all known legal codes.

We have also -- as a society, not necessarily as individuals -- agreed to recognize the concept of Intellectual Property. Legal codes may or may not be drawn up to make them Illegal. But we all (as societies) have agreed that such property theft is wrong.

Those who violate this code -- whether "merely" moral or fully codified as Law -- are rebels against society.

One may argue whether or not intellectual property rights are truly recognized by a given society, but only in the case where it does not have the force of law. We have agreed to live together under the laws deemed necessary by our elected leaders.

The fact that those laws may be stupid or unenforceable does not remove them from the social contract.

Obviously, all you software thieves -- much like drug users, jaywalkers, and bestiality aficianados -- have chosen the primacy of the Individual.

Most of us do.

But not recognizing our social contracts while enjoying their benefits is morally bankrupt.

/

MrFun · December 17, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Spec
Downloading wise.

NOTE: I dont want links in this thread, how to's or where. All I want to know is if you download software illegaly instead of purchasing. And if so or if not, I would like to know why or why not.

Basicly, what you think about the whole thing.

Please people, try not to get this thread closed.

From the thread's title, it sounded like you were sniffing around for illegal immigrants.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 11:26

Well... an entire society (Canada) excluded personal copyright infringement (through downloading) from its laws, and made thus it socially acceptable.

This "social contract" you speak of, isn't universal.

Ming · December 17, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Well... an entire society (Canada) excluded personal copyright infringement (through downloading) from its laws, and made thus it socially acceptable.

This "social contract" you speak of, isn't universal.

It's illegal to download software in Canada without compensation

MrFun · December 17, 2003, 11:31

So you can only download something if you have a real, big, nasty piece of sh*t waiting to come out??

-Jrabbit · December 17, 2003, 11:32

Understood, MrBaggins. The contents of the social contract change. But the fact that one exists is a societal universal.

MrBaggins · December 17, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
You seem to be the one that has reached the limit of your argument. You basic premise now seems to be that since it might change in the future, it isn't illegal now

An d yeah... I am sticking with same argument. If you break the law, you are performing an illegal act.

Actually.. I just checked the status of that international copyright law you were talking about... and actually it doesn't apply to Malaysia...

Here is the list of signees, straight from the World International Property Organization (Geneva) itself...

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/documen...word/s-wct.doc

Personal software intellectual property infringement is thus legal* in Malaysia

*provided commercial use or profit isn't involved

Ming · December 17, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually.. I just checked the status of that international copyright law you were talking about... and actually it doesn't apply to Malaysia...

Here is the list of signees, straight from the World International Property Organization (Geneva) itself...

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/documen...word/s-wct.doc

Personal software intellectual property infringement is thus legal* in Malaysia

*provided commercial use or profit isn't involved

Finally... a valid argument. This one I can't argue.

However... you didn't know that when you making your earlier arguments.