This is the only legitimate purpose and approach to any kind of rights attached to identifying “brands” of this kind. 

If a use would confuse the general public about who they are dealing with, then it infringes.  If not, then there is no merit to classing it as an infringement.  Brand protections should never be treated as an individual entity’s property right, and always as a consumer right, otherwise we end up with unacceptable nonsense like the chilling Olympics “trademark” premised oppression.

Because no one has asked me to? Please learn to read.

> “Once again. When I or anyone else talk about theft and piracy in the same sentence we are not in anyway referring to the legal definitions of the word. We are of course referring to it’s colloquial use.”

Which still proves that you and anyone else are indeed ignorant, and have problems understanding logic. You can not use the word theft colloquially about the act of manufacturing something with one’s own property, that oneself owns, according to information which is freely given to that person. Nothing goes missing, and all property involved in the act is owned by the filesharer. No theft whatsoever takes place, nether legislative or colloquially, according to any correct use of the word. For colloquially use if the word theft something scarce most go missing, which isn’t the case with an infringement.

> “So it’s pointless taking about crime. This is a prime example of you using a strawman.”

Please re-read the sentence, and then think harder. Your argument is that an infringement can be called theft, and that argument is based on the fact that an infringement is indeed a crime. You do not call legal copying theft, now do you? So it is indeed relevant to talk about crimes, and give examples of crimes that can’t be called theft colloquially. Because the foundation for your use of the word theft is that the act is a crime, it is in no way a straw-man argument to bring up crimes.

> “You rarely state facts..”

The claim was that an infringement wasn’t theft any more than what murder, arson or vandalism, and that those acts are something completely diffrent than theft. That claim is indeed factual, regardless of if you use the word theft about murder, arson, vandalism or an infringement. Nor does it change the fact that you seem to have a problem understanding what constitutes a straw-man argument.

> “..and you rarely backup or provide any rationale for your statements.”

If you have a problem with a statement i put forward, and you can not accept it as it is written based purely on the premisses than is provided, please speak up and ask, and i will explain it to you in great detail, until even you understand it.

> “You just expect the reader to take your word for it.”

If you find a statement from me which you can’t accept as it is written, please speak up. I dare you. Those who do always get a response from mer, until the matter has been clarified.

> “Oh, and a strawman can exist alongside relevant arguments.

And i have not claimed otherwise, so that was a straw-man argument. My claim was that the fact that something additional is mentioned in a reply doesn’t in itself make it a straw-man argument.

But you aren’t Fred. You aren’t.

“Because some ignorant people, you in particular, which you have proven over the last couple of months, do have a hard time understanding which crimes that are theft, and which aren’t, so to help you on your way of learning about reality, i pointed out a few different crimes that aren’t theft, a few of which were crimes that are committed againstproperty, which still doesn’t make them theft.”

Once again. When I or anyone else talk about theft and piracy in the same sentence we are not in anyway referring to the legal definitions of the word. We are of course referring to it’s colloquial use.  Piracy is obviously not legally Theft as legally it is Copyright Infringement. That is obvious. So it’s pointless taking about crime. This is a prime example of you using a strawman.

“Actually, no, that sentence did not constitute a straw-man argument, because the previously argued acts of theft and infringement was mentioned in it. That somethingadditional was mentioned does not make it a straw-man argument. A factual claim is not an argument in the first place. Do you not even understand the difference between stating afact and putting forward an argument, which you then respond to? Facts are not arguments, facts are premisses on which arguments are based.”

You rarely state facts and you rarely backup or provide any rationale for your statements. You just expect the reader to take your word for it. I’m sure that some of the more credulous do. Oh, and a strawman can exist alongside relevant arguments.
 

You seem to have a problem reading out a logical conclusion from a statement. The answer i provided did in no way mean that i couldn’t verify it. On the contrary, i can. And try to re-read what you actually asked me. You did not ask me to actually verify it, you asked me if i could. Are you having a problem understanding what you yourself actually wrote?

> “And what does this have to do with anything I said?”

Because some ignorant people, you in particular, which you have proven over the last couple of months, do have a hard time understanding which crimes that are theft, and which aren’t, so to help you on your way of learning about reality, i pointed out a few different crimes that aren’t theft, a few of which were crimes that are committed against property, which still doesn’t make them theft.

> “You wouldn’t be using a strawman now Fredrika? I mean, that’s very unlike you………”

Actually, no, that sentence did not constitute a straw-man argument, because the previously argued acts of theft and infringement was mentioned in it. That something additional was mentioned does not make it a straw-man argument. A factual claim is not an argument in the first place. Do you not even understand the difference between stating a fact and putting forward an argument, which you then respond to? Facts are not arguments, facts are premisses on which arguments are based.

So you aren’t able to verify it. That’s all you had to say.  

“Theft, arson, vandalism and murder is something completely different than an infringement. Did you not know this? ”

And what does this have to do with anything I said? You wouldn’t be using a strawman now Fredrika? I mean, that’s very unlike you………

“Tom/Dirty Bear/Dirty/Bob, why do you post comments under so many different signatures and user profiles? Is it an attempt at making yourself out to be several different persons, while you are in fact only one? Disqus offers you the possibility to merge different profiles, so maybe you can merge these four?”
TorrentFreak seems to prevent me from posting so I sometimes need to use a new account in order to post. Simple answer really. Sorry I couldn’t give a cooler answer than “Torrentfreak appears to censoring me”. But you figured out that it was me. Well done. You really need to give yourself a medal.

Thanks for the advice by the way. I shall be merging those accounts.
 

> “Are you able to verify this for those intellegent enough not to swallow everything you say?”

It’s a simple matter of pointing them in the direction of a copyright legislation of their choice, maybe from their native country. In it they can verify that a copyright infringement is not theft, any
more than what arson, vandalism or murder is. Theft, arson, vandalism
and murder
is something completely different than an infringement. Did you not know this?

Btw, Tom/Dirty Bear/Dirty/Bob, why do you post comments under so many different signatures and user profiles? Is it an attempt at making yourself out to be several different persons, while you are in fact only one? Disqus offers you the possibility to merge different profiles, so maybe you can merge these three?

http://disqus.com/guest/dfc46bcdf9cc58289afb68cf4d25006c/
http://disqus.com/Dirty_Bear/
http://disqus.com/guest/226128832e0f0566f07c029fc434e8bb/

Are you able to verify this for those intellegent enough not to swallow everything you say?