http://newsroom-magazine.com/2012/executive-branch/justice-department/gregory-a-cherwonik-pleads-guilty-to-imagine-piracy-and-copyright-infringement/

It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact about the judicial concept of copyright and piracy. The difference between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works is a well established concept that’s written in specifically in many countries copyright laws, especially those where the copyright legislation only controls use of intellectual works with intent to profit, where therefore non-profit use if intellectual works, as P2P-filesharing, is completely legal.

> “Incorrect and a totally false statement on your part. I don’t believe “everything” constitutes profit. Thats a something that “you” have assumed. And nowhere have I said such a thing.”

You consider gain to constitute profit, and everything in existence constitutes some gain in some way, therefore everything in existence constitutes profit according to you.

> “Where does it have meaning ?? I’ve seen nothing to back up that claim.”

It has meaning in all those copyright legislations that differentiates between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works, including the US one, where i believe the term is noncommercial use instead of non-profit. It also has meaning in everyday dialogue about use of intellectual works, where it’s well established to differentiate between use with intent to profit, and non-profit use.

> “Which isn’t true. You don’t gain something from everything in existence.”

Yes you do.

“But it can. Because one party ultimately gains.”

Which has no relevance to the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, where gain doesn’t make it intent to profit.

> “It does according to the dictionary.”

No it does not, the dictionary does not say that all gain constitutes profit. The word can be used that way, but that doesn’t mean that all gain constitutes profit.

> “It can definitely mean something specific in relation to “non-profit” piracy (whatever the heck that is)..”

Are you saying that you lack enough knowledge about the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, to have heard of the two different types of use of intellectual works that exists, as in use with intent to profit, and non-profit use, which most legislations judge differently?

> “..however, its obviously better for a file-sharer to accept the simplest meaning of the word profit and discard all the other meanings.”

How is it better? Secondly, file-sharer’s don’t use the word in it’s simplest meaning, they use it in the well established way that it’s used regarding the judicial concept of copyright and piracy. Your belief of what use of the word that constitutes simple is irrelevant to that fact.

> “I think you know what that means.”

I do not what being on the pro-piracy side of the issue means. It sounds as someone who purposely commits piracy out of belief that it by definition is right to commit piracy.

Well that would not be me, nor most pirates, but i still find meaning in the differentiating between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works, as does most judicial systems and copyright laws, lawyers and judges(which can hardly be considered to be on the pro-piracy side of the issue), and i would find that meaningful regardless of what any law says.

> “That doesn’t explain why you’re replying with “which is completely irrelevant ? ” which of course makes absolutely no sense in the context of your post.”

You should have read it as Which is completely irrelevant, do you not understand this? That’s the way you normally interpret a question mark after a statement, as in do you not understand this? as in the preceding statement.

> “Not everything in existence constitutes profit. For example, feel free to attempt a sentence where Cancer and profit is positively used and gain has been achieved.”

A person who has cancer has gained the knowledge of what it’s like to have cancer. Because gain exists, it must be profit, according to your confused use of the word, right?

Whether or not you subjectively feel a word is used positively is irrelevant to if any gain has been made.

> “It does mean you’ve made a gain, or valuable return (part of a dictionary definition of profit)”

It still doesn’t mean you have made a profit.

> “That doesn’t invalidate that a person has still gained (or according to the dictionary definition profited) by way of performing the transaction.”

Gain does not automatically equal profit, unless you argue that everything in existence constitutes profit.

> “It just happens to transpire that profit has broader meanings than simply “financial gain”. And because of that, it is not out of context to say that broader everyday non commercial piracy can be in fact be “for-profit””

When discussing the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, it most certainly is completely wrong, because in that context profit has a very specific meaning.

> “You’ll need to clarify that reply. You’re agreeing with me, then disagreeing.”

Your claim was that what someone says doesn’t decide what constitutes non-profit use of intellectual works, and with that i agree. Non-profit use of intellectual works is non-profit use of intellectual works, regardless of what someone says or believe, and the opposite also applies, you saying that filsharing equals profit does not make it so.

> “They are deprived the ability to potentially earn revenue from the downloader(s) in a sharing transaction involving their intellectual works.”

They are not, the ability to do that is still there. That the likeliness of such transaction might have changed doesn’t mean that the ability has been deprived. By your illogical confused logic, if someone tells someone:

-Do not buy that CD, it’s complete crap, saying that would also be depriving, because the likeliness of the transaction to take place has now shrunk. Again you have managed to make a word lose it’s meaning, this time deprive.

In reality deprive is a word that is used regarding something to you actually had in the first place, and afterwards no longer had, but a possibility to sell is something that you always have, regardless of libraries, filesharing or competition from others offering the same product that you offer.

Usually when an entrepreneur fails to sell something because of competition, or because the potential buyer manufactured the goods himself, the word deprive is not the first that comes to mind. But there is obviously always failed entrepreneurs that try to make up excuses for why they are so failed and don’t manage to sell anything. Usually those entrepreneurs who can’t handle themselves on the free market and believe that they out of principle should be privileged with a legislative monopoly. Ignorant idiots, blaming the consumer when they naturally, economically and with a capitalist sense don’t see any point with buying the goods or services the entrepreneur sells, instead of realizing that what they sell no longer has any value.

> “I disagree”

Your opinion on that matter is completely irrelevant when we discuss the judicial concept of copyright and piracy.

> “It doesn’t constitute profit in a fiscal sense.

Which is the way the word profit is used when discussing the judicial concept of copyright and piracy.

> “You can choose to dismiss the broader definitions of the word profit. They will exist regardless.”

No, they do not. The problem here is that the way you personally and subjectively interpreted what you read in a dictionary equals that everything in existence constitutes profit. Somewhere you should realize that that’s an interpretation that renders the word meaningless.

> “Thanks for confirming what I already knew.”

The fact that what someone does privately has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about judicial concepts is an obvious fact. Do i really need to confirm obvious facts to you?

No I “read” your initial sentence. Its your language that leads to multiple ways to interpret what should be a simple point.

“Apparently you have a semantic belief that everything in existence constitutes profit, including taking a breath of air, because you have gained something from it, in that case oxygen.”

Its not semantic. The dictionary describes profit perfectly.

When it comes to piracy however, the fact that you get access to an intellectual work doesn’t make it piracy with intent to profit. For piracy to be considered other than non-profit you have to get money in your hand. This is a well established concept that in both legislation and language differentiates between two types of piracy. The initial comment from me was about non-profit piracy, not piracy with intent to profit.”

You’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree with it.

“The problem here is simply that you semantically believe everything in existence constitutes profit” .

Incorrect and a totally false statement on your part. I don’t believe “everything” constitutes profit. Thats a something that “you” have assumed. And nowhere have I said such a thing.

“Well you did actually, because the concept of non-profit piracy is something real and well established, and that was the only type of piracy i referred to in my initial comment. If you wanna argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, the correct place to do that is a forum where the topic is “meaningless semantic belief that renders well established words useless”. Not a discussion about intellectual works, copyright and piracy, where the concept of non-profit is well established and has an actual meaning.”

Where does it have meaning ?? I’ve seen nothing to back up that claim.

“Yes, but this discussion is about the judicial concept of piracy, and there profit means something other than everything in existence constitutes profit.”

This discussion can be whatever it wants to be. And if I choose to question something, I’m free to do so.

“in the same was that you gain something from everything in existence”

“in the same was” ? …..what …..oh you mean “way” they aren’t even close on the keyboard

anyway.

Which isn’t true. You don’t gain something from everything in existence.

“but that does not make non-profit piracy and piracy with intent to profit the same thing.”

But it can. Because one party ultimately gains.

“The fact that you gain something does not mean you have made a profit”

It does according to the dictionary.

“if you use the word profit in a way where it actually means something specific, instead of everything in existence, which is a use of the word that renders it completely meaningless.”

It can definitely mean something specific in relation to “non-profit” piracy (whatever the heck that is) however, its obviously better for a file-sharer to accept the simplest meaning of the word profit and discard all the other meanings.

“There’s a difference between either mistakenly punching in the O instead if the I on the keyboard, or mistakenly misspelling a word, from writing sentences that makes no sense whatsoever.”

You need to be more careful with your I’s and O’s then, you just did it again…….”punching in the O instead “if” the I on the keyboard” .

My sentences make a great deal more sense than yours. If you need help, let me know. But, don’t forget, your sentences get a low read score, you mix letters up and sometimes use the wrong tenses.

“Whether or not a person/organization is on the pro-piracy side of the issue(whatever that means) ”

I think you know what that means.

“Because your personal belief has no relevance to the later stated fact that intellectual works doesn’t constitute property, which therefore no one can be entitled to, so i didn’t understand why you again brought up your personal irrelevant belief.”

That doesn’t explain why you’re replying with “which is completely irrelevant ? ” which of course makes absolutely no sense in the context of your post.

“No, you most certainly did redefined the word profit, because the way you use it everything in existence constitutes profit, which most certainly renders the word useless.”

I didn’t as you say “redefined”it, the dictionary is very specific.

Dictionary examples include “The book can be read with profit by anyone who wants to understand how the system works.”

Just like “My business would profit greatly if I download this software for free”

“And what would then be the purpose of the word profit if everything in existence constitutes profit?”

Not everything in existence constitutes profit. For example, feel free to attempt a sentence where Cancer and profit is positively used and gain has been achieved.

“Now you’re talking economics, and saving money by not performing a transaction does not equal making a profit.”

It does mean you’ve made a gain, or valuable return (part of a dictionary definition of profit)

“expense zero, return = free software I needed”…..therefore gain or valuable return

“It means having the same amount of money that you had before = no profit.”

That doesn’t invalidate that a person has still gained (or according to the dictionary definition profited) by way of performing the transaction.

“Now you use the word profit in a manner that makes the phrase saving money meaningless. There’s a reason for why we have different words in our language for describing different actions, and why we don’t use the word profit to describe taking a breath of air or saving money in a way that means you have exactly the same amount of money in your wallet afterwards as before.”

Yes there are reasons why we have different words for different actions. It just happens to transpire that profit has broader meanings than simply “financial gain”. And because of that, it is not out of context to say that broader everyday non commercial piracy can be in fact be “for-profit”

“Correct, P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works regardless of what you say or what your semantic belief is.”

You’ll need to clarify that reply. You’re agreeing with me, then disagreeing.

“Whether or not someone was deprived of something(which isn’t the case with filesharing)”

They are deprived the ability to potentially earn revenue from the downloader(s) in a sharing transaction involving their intellectual works.

“or if they feel or believe they were deprived of something has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works.”

I disagree

“Which does not change the fact that libraries offer a non-profit function, or the fact that when people gain access to intellectual works in libraries and save money the gain still doesn’t constitutes profit.”

It doesn’t constitute profit in a fiscal sense. They can however profit from being a member of the library simply due to the broader meanings of the word “profit”. Just like filesharers can have those same definitions applied.

“People do not walk out of libraries saying:

-Aah, i made a great profit today by not buying any books.

If the did they would be laughed at, for not understanding how to use the word profit correctly.

Unless of course you argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, which still renders the word useless.”

You can choose to dismiss the broader definitions of the word profit. They will exist regardless.

“What’s the hurry with posting a reply so quickly, that you rather post it as a reply to yourself, instead of to the person it’s actually directed at?”

I post when I’m able. If Disqus is occasionally pedestrian, I post around it.

“That has no relevance whatsoever to anything regarding this discussion.”

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.