I suggest you go flamebait one on an IRC channel somewhere and see how much people make a fuss when being told what they can and cannot do with information.

The buyer does.

while at the same time arguing for 6 plus posts that the word “consume” isn’t categorically defined in dictionaries as “to enjoy avidly” even though it’s exactly that definition in countless dictionaries. It’s there in black and white Tetridae and you’re arguing that point with horribly incorrect logic encompassing such statement sentiments as “they’re paid to put those definitions to protect their privilege” blah blah – it’s so completely bizarre that I can only assume you’re trolling.

Because according to you, word definitions (although a stranger point to debate)seems to be an easier point for you to attempt to argue than all the other points you decided to completely ignore because you don’t have any valid arguments against my points, even though you bought them up in the first place lol

Or that YOU bought up road crime in your comparison – what crimes do you think are mostly committed on public roads ??? lol

Anyone intelligent person reading this will have no issues deducing how deluded and uninformed you are about basics such as “word meanings” and that you have an inability to keep track of what YOU bought up in the first place and the obvious lateral thinking tracks that any critical thinking person will take to debate YOUR statements. And that for some reason, you don’t seem to be able to comprehend those logical steps even though they are very obvious.

I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt up to now but your inability to grasp irrefutable facts such as word meanings (that are defined the same in dictionaries across the web) can only mean you’re trolling and are not even intending to debate any point seriously or you’re such a whacked out tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut (when you say things like “They’re paid to print incorrect words in dictionaries” ) that you either are, convinced of your own delusions to the extent that you’re a psychopath or your just trolling and lying at the same time.

I’ll continue debating WHEN you start answering the debate points that you started but decided to ignore.

Of course it is your concern, because I will keep claim that paying for culture today is investing and not consuming.

“What “investors” ? What craziness are you talking about now ?”

The fans are investors of the creative work of course. You keep insisting on calling it “consuming” when paying for the copies but that is just plain wrong. Even a kid would know that if pointed out.

“YOU ARE THE ONE that bought up the comparison between legal/illegal activities on websites and roads”

Well you keep making faulty comparisons. I never even mentioned speed limits and they are there to protect peoples’ health – not at all the same as copy rights.

“Good job on failing to address all the counter-points I made to your arguments.”

Well your counter points which I did not respond to had no points or were so obviously flawed that there was no reason to address them.

With respect to almost every word in the dictionary actually lol
______________

You believe there is such a thing as “actual” or “correct” meaning of a word? Of course not. Words mean what people think of when they hear them. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course there are actual and correct meanings of words. But you feel free to continue communicating whilst not knowing the definition and meaning of words like “consume” It’s really not my concern.

______________

Comparing speed limits to copyrights is quite stupid. I mean.. how many have you heard of being damaged in a file sharing accident..? LOL

What is stupid (or rather who is stupid) is that YOU ARE THE ONE that bought up the comparison between legal/illegal activities on websites and roads….and you’ve already forgotten. tsk tsk

______________

That does not compare to automatically stopping everyone and checking all passenger and belongings in the same way as internet surveillance bills being proposed does.

Why are you worried about bills that aren’t even US law and would require multiple privacy revisions and subsequent hearings before being one ?

______________

Well sure you and them are right with that respect too. But surveilling and censoring said investors surely don’t make it any better.

What “investors” ? What craziness are you talking about now ?

__________________

Good job on failing to address all the counter-points I made to your arguments. I guess when your “logic well” reaches capacity, you ignore all the debate points you originally started ;)

With respect to copyright they probably have same similar definitions.

“contain the ACTUAL CORRECT meanings of the words”

You believe there is such a thing as “actual” or “correct” meaning of a word? Of course not. Words mean what people think of when they hear them. Nothing more nothing less.

Comparing speed limits to copyrights is quite stupid. I mean.. how many have you heard of being damaged in a file sharing accident..? LOL

“Agreed, you can’t simply shut down state owned road if as you say “because you know that many criminals travel or do business there” what the relevant authorities do however is monitor the road and arrest/prosecute those that are breaking the law. ”

That does not compare to automatically stopping everyone and checking all passenger and belongings in the same way as internet surveillance bills being proposed does.

“They are of the opinion that suing “fans” is alienating potential customers.”

Well sure you and them are right with that respect too. But surveilling and censoring said investors surely don’t make it any better.

There is one shorter and easier explanation.. and that is: “they write what they think they will make more money by writing”.

How is that a simpler explanation LOL…..All publishers of dictionaries would then have different meanings for words lol

Could it therefore be simpler that these dictionaries contain the ACTUAL CORRECT meanings of the words (established over a few hundred years and revised as a when necessary) but on this occaison, you just don’t happen to like the established meaning (that every dictionary has for the word consume) lol

__________________

I’m just stating how it actually works, not how it is intended to work. You can have 100 good intentions with a law but if it doesn’t work as intended (any more) then it IS a bad law.

At some point, EVERBODY will drive faster in their car than the designated speed limit for example….EVERYBODY. Do you think we should just have no speed limits and let everyone drive around as fast as they like ? Speed limits laws benefit society as a whole, you can’t catch every infraction but prosecution for breaking them is intended as a deterrent to abide by the law. If you break that law, the consequences are on your shoulders, exactly the same as infringing copyrights.

__________________

You are free to seek employment even without copy right. Of course doing a some job that you have not checked for demand is risky, but that is true for any entrepreneur. You might as well view copies of old works as “portfolio” or PR creating a demand for your work – therefore reducing said risk. But that won’t work if you view the copies of that work as “precious”. If you keep doing that, then you will be in the hands of the established publishing companies and not in the hand of your fans.

Entrepeneurs don’t generally seek employment, they work for themsleves. Why would any entrepeneur throw away their copyrights and merely view “old works as a portoflio” ….old works are still a portfolio with copyrights are they not ;)

__________________

But of course it is cencorship of the internet to rip down a site that is used by both law-abiding citizens and law-breakers. Most sites have at least a few law-breakers using their services… you don’t shut down a road just because you know that many criminals travel or do business there..!

Agreed, you can’t simply shut down state owned road if as you say “because you know that many criminals travel or do business there” what the relevant authorities do however is monitor the road and arrest/prosecute those that are breaking the law.

__________________

What this really is about is you wanting to shut down all chances for ordinary people to reach each other so they HAVE to go through the established publishers. Read up on SOPA if you don’t believe me.

You think I havent read sopa,pipa,cispa in detail lol…what business do you think I’m in exactly ?? And why would ordinary people (remember we are all ordinary people) not be able to reach each other just because you can’t download copyrighed materials freely ?

__________________

Nope. It is always much worse to go after the messenger. Learn some history of how Fascist nations start out.

Messenger immunity is one of the first things taken away.. that is.. try and make postal service / other communications / ISPs responsible for what people send or do online, try and make site owners responsible for what people post on their sites and so on. SOPA, PIPA and now CISPA really are a worrying development in what once was the most awesome democracy in the world. There is always a balance between “legal rights” and a free society.
In the end if you don’t do dare anything from fear of being sued by someone.. that is clearly not freedom…

Most posters on TF would disagree with you. They are of the opinion that suing “fans” is alienating potential customers. As far as most rights-holders would be concerned, it’s actually easier to go after a website that is knowingly infringing on their rights than millions of individual users that use the services of the website. Just as a percent of the users of a site know that they are infringing on rights, the website obviously knows they are too. Why spend the time chasing millions when you can devote that time to one.

There is one shorter and easier explanation.. and that is: “they write what they think they will make more money by writing”.

“And this just goes to show your limited knowledge about why copyrights exist.”

I’m just stating how it actually works, not how it is intended to work. You can have 100 good intentions with a law but if it doesn’t work as intended (any more) then it IS a bad law.

You are free to seek employment even without copy right. Of course doing a some job that you have not checked for demand is risky, but that is true for any entrepreneur. You might as well view copies of old works as “portfolio” or PR creating a demand for your work – therefore reducing said risk. But that won’t work if you view the copies of that work as “precious”. If you keep doing that, then you will be in the hands of the established publishing companies and not in the hand of your fans.

“It’s not censorship of the internet”

But of course it is cencorship of the internet to rip down a site that is used by both law-abiding citizens and law-breakers. Most sites have at least a few law-breakers using their services… you don’t shut down a road just because you know that many criminals travel or do business there..!

What this really is about is you wanting to shut down all chances for ordinary people to reach each other so they HAVE to go through the established publishers. Read up on SOPA if you don’t believe me.

“Why would rights-holders not want to go after the websites that benefit
THE MOST from massive infringement ? Wouldn’t you rather they went after
those websites than come after you ?”

Nope. It is always much worse to go after the messenger. Learn some history of how Fascist nations start out.

Messenger immunity is one of the first things taken away.. that is.. try and make postal service / other communications / ISPs responsible for what people send or do online, try and make site owners responsible for what people post on their sites and so on. SOPA, PIPA and now CISPA really are a worrying development in what once was the most awesome democracy in the world. There is always a balance between “legal rights” and a free society.

In the end if you don’t do dare anything from fear of being sued by someone.. that is clearly not freedom…