CDZ Will online piracy ever be legal??

[KokomoJojo]

Will online piracy ever be legalized what do you guys think??.

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

 

[320 Years of History]

Will online piracy ever be legalized what do you guys think??.

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Will online piracy ever be legalized what do you guys think??.

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

 

[320 Years of History]

Will online piracy ever be legalized what do you guys think??.

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Will online piracy ever be legalized what do you guys think??.

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Piracy legal? Only if piracy acquires a new definition.

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

 

[KokomoJojo]

why not, since attorneys can lie in court with near impunity, judges can change the original meaning of any word by euphemism, the gvmnt and news media can lie and feed you propaganda and disinformation with complete impunity.

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

Oh I wasnt aware of any requirement that my comments had to hinge off a previous comment.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, that would still need to occur, and so far, it has not occurred.

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

Oh I wasnt aware of any requirement that my comments had to hinge off a previous comment.

Well, the only "requirement" is that the conversation be coherent. Of course one can introduce a new theme to a conversation, but arbitrarily and "out of the blue" doing so while quoting totally unrelated content doesn't exactly make it clear that is what one is doing.

By all means, even if just for the sake of convenience, introduce the new theme that is the result of having been inspired by a quoted passage, but at least let readers know that's what you're deliberately doing, that that's where your thoughts are coming from and headed. There are many ways to do that, one of which is to simply state, "...which brings to mind a related but different topic...." At least that way reader and parties to the conversation will know WTH you're doing and won't think you just suffered a massive "brain fart."

 

[KokomoJojo]

if it did that would mean the little guy has equal standing in law

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

Oh I wasnt aware of any requirement that my comments had to hinge off a previous comment.

Well, the only "requirement" is that the conversation be coherent. Of course one can introduce a new theme to a conversation, but arbitrarily and "out of the blue" doing so while quoting totally unrelated content doesn't exactly make it clear that is what one is doing.

By all means, even if just for the sake of convenience, introduce the new theme that is the result of having been inspired by a quoted passage, but at least let readers know that's what you're deliberately doing, that that's where your thoughts are coming from and headed. There are many ways to do that, one of which is to simply state, "...which brings to mind a related but different topic...." At least that way reader and parties to the conversation will know WTH you're doing and won't think you just suffered a massive "brain fart."

seems you recognized what I did just fine, want some cheese to go with that whine?

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
I don't know about that; that's one hell of a huge leap you've made asserting that. If that were all it takes for "little guys" to have "equal standing in law" it'd have been done ages ago. Additionally, the law itself doesn't discriminate on the basis of one's "size." What differs about the legal winnings and losses in law between "big" and "little" guys has nothing to do with whether folks can or do pirate content or not pirate content.

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

Oh I wasnt aware of any requirement that my comments had to hinge off a previous comment.

Well, the only "requirement" is that the conversation be coherent. Of course one can introduce a new theme to a conversation, but arbitrarily and "out of the blue" doing so while quoting totally unrelated content doesn't exactly make it clear that is what one is doing.

By all means, even if just for the sake of convenience, introduce the new theme that is the result of having been inspired by a quoted passage, but at least let readers know that's what you're deliberately doing, that that's where your thoughts are coming from and headed. There are many ways to do that, one of which is to simply state, "...which brings to mind a related but different topic...." At least that way reader and parties to the conversation will know WTH you're doing and won't think you just suffered a massive "brain fart."

seems you recognized what I did just fine, want some cheese to go with that whine?

You know when I learned that you had deliberately introduced a new and unrelated line of discussion rather than offering unrelated thoughts as being ostensibly related to the original line of discussion? When you implied that you had done so. (see red text above)

I have raised three kids and mentored many more. Do not try getting "cutely equivocal" with me and think I won't know what you're trying to do. That's going to get you nowhere useful for I'm not among the "mental midgets" whom you'll engage in a conversation. Just "own your sh*t" (incoherence/rhetorical mistake) and move on; I today had to do the same thing. That's what mature people do. I will let you (or anyone) do that without recrimination....because it's also something mature people do.

 

[Indeependent]

I have seen the cancellations of dozens of shows in the last 4 years that have been renewed because they are being shared P2P.
The bottom line is that "Piracy" is not really hurting anyone and that it is many times an excellent indicator of what people are watching.
Many sponsors will have their products displayed IN the show or movie because no one wants to watch the commercials.

 

[KokomoJojo]

are you purposely reconstructing the meaning and intent of my post or did it fly right over your head?

Neither. Look at the flow of conversation between us and tell me what, prior to your mention of the "little guy," had anything to do with "little guys" having or lacking "equal standing in law."

Oh I wasnt aware of any requirement that my comments had to hinge off a previous comment.

Well, the only "requirement" is that the conversation be coherent. Of course one can introduce a new theme to a conversation, but arbitrarily and "out of the blue" doing so while quoting totally unrelated content doesn't exactly make it clear that is what one is doing.

By all means, even if just for the sake of convenience, introduce the new theme that is the result of having been inspired by a quoted passage, but at least let readers know that's what you're deliberately doing, that that's where your thoughts are coming from and headed. There are many ways to do that, one of which is to simply state, "...which brings to mind a related but different topic...." At least that way reader and parties to the conversation will know WTH you're doing and won't think you just suffered a massive "brain fart."

seems you recognized what I did just fine, want some cheese to go with that whine?

You know when I learned that you had deliberately introduced a new and unrelated line of discussion rather than offering unrelated thoughts as being ostensibly related to the original line of discussion? When you implied that you had done so. (see red text above)

I have raised three kids and mentored many more. Do not try getting "cutely equivocal" with me and think I won't know what you're trying to do. That's going to get you nowhere useful for I'm not among the "mental midgets" whom you'll engage in a conversation. Just "own your sh*t" (incoherence/rhetorical mistake) and move on; I today had to do the same thing. That's what mature people do. I will let you (or anyone) do that without recrimination....because it's also something mature people do.

thats right, I brought in a counter point as another prong of the argument with an enlarged scope and you had the opportunity to make a counter argument, move past it or simply say nothing (like an adult) however instead you chose to whine in pretense that the argument I proffered was contrary to some debate standard that you clearly conjured up in your imagination only to have it thrown right back in your lap as it will continue to be if you wish to continue pursuing this course.

I suggest you drop it. (Like an adult)

 

[KokomoJojo]

because no one wants to watch the commercials.

bingo!

 

[guyfawkestruepirate]

I have seen the cancellations of dozens of shows in the last 4 years that have been renewed because they are being shared P2P.
The bottom line is that "Piracy" is not really hurting anyone and that it is many times an excellent indicator of what people are watching.
Many sponsors will have their products displayed IN the show or movie because no one wants to watch the commercials.

You speak the truth.