as it stands.. i’m going to continue pirating tv till the end of time because the content producers don’t get that some of us just DON’T WANT TO WATCH 30 MINUTES OF ADS FOR EVERY HOUR OF TV and a season of a show isn’t worth 35 dollars.

and no, i’m never going to get cable. it’s awful.

If someone chooses to act contrary to this knowledge, fine. We cross that bridge when we get there. You’re choosing to use a future event that may or may not happen and say, “This might happen! Therefore, let’s not trade data at all!” That is hyperbole. It’s like saying that the Sun will eventually blow up and let’s not do anything to improve or change the problems that we have now.

For someone who claims not to support IP enforcement you’re doing a horrible job of portraying yourself as such.

Go back and read up on what many nobel prize-winning economists are saying. “Intellectual Property” is a phenomenon which is not about “Ownership”.

It’s about party A restricting the property rights of party B. As such it is an exception to any market capitalism, not a pillar of support.

And I see you still have no clue what the legal, moral, and dictionary definition of “steal” is.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it as seems to be usual just you completely lacking a basic grasp of law?

If someone clones someone else, fine. Using said clone in order to represent the original is a case of fraud/identity theft.

And this is why your analogy of using a clones face on a pedophile-poster IS INDEED a case of fraud/identity theft.

The same way it would be fraud if someone copied a music file and then tried to sell it under the original’s brand name. The same way it’s probably ok for someone to write down your citizen’s identification number but not to use it in order to present yourself as the owner of that number.

If someone picks up a few of your hair follicles and clones you for their personal use it’s an entirely different kettle of fish, and should certainly be legal, the same way you really don’t, nor should have, any control over what someone does with a photograph of you as long as it isn’t used for fraudulent or defamatory purposes.

Do we really need to dumb it down any further?

Honestly, if you start with a lousy analogy, trying to prop it up with irrelevant nonsense isn’t the answer…

How about your pegging people with a dissenting opuinion as “terrorists”?

Or do you reserve that particular slur only for people who beat you over the head with facts?

1) Copyright infringement still isn’t theft. Not morally, not legally, and not by any dictionary definition. Why should anyone bother listening to you at all when you start off by demonstrating that you don’t even have a basic grasp of the language you’re typing in? 

2) Terrorism is also a word you don’t seem to understand. It’s defined as “Politically Motivated Violence with intent to terrorize”. Again you come up with a personal definition of the word which makes as much sense as describing an “apple” as “beating”.

3) FYI I have indeed paid for “non-physical goods”. Indeed, I’ll bet I pay more so than you do, as it appears my spending habits actually exceed the average norm by quite a bit. I am however, quite selective.
The main reason I joined the pirates was quite simply because although I couldn’t have cared less about filesharing to start with i took great offense at the actions of copyright stakeholders.

I suggest you go right back to grade school and re-learn the english language. Alongside a general understanding about proportionality of law, what “general rights” actually mean, and how they can be applied without breaking a basic legal paradigm.

That said, thank you very much for proving my points by displaying your rhetoric to every reader on this forum.