🚀 go-pugleaf

Scout wrote:

> There is NO difference between commercial and personal use unless the
> copyright owner specifies it.

That's absolutely ludicrous! The copyright owner isn't God, so they can't regulate
personal use without due process.
 
> In other words, your refusal to accept (or agree with), the law does
> not exempt you from being accountable for breaking it.

If you don't agree to a contract, then it's just a worthless document; so yes, you
would be exempt. You can't MAKE people agree to something they don't like, you
know.
 
> Again, you are WRONG.The agreement specifically states that you do not
> OWN the software, you have bought the right to USE it. At no time does
> the licensee give up the intellectual rights to the software.

First of all an agreement isn't an agreement unless everyone agrees with it(duh).
Second, if software companies are only selling the right to USE software, then
they're guilty of the biggest false advertising conspiracy of th decade. When was
the last time you saw an add for a "License to Use Microsoft Expolorer"? I haven't
seen any, but I sure have seen a lot of adds for "Microsoft Explorer".
 
> Or maybe you conveniently forgot how to read english???

No entiendo ingles.;>
 
> Once it that "replica"  leaves your hands, it ceased being " personal
> use ".

 I think that's got to be the stupidest staement you've given us yet. "Commercial 
use" is using it as to run a bussiness, so ANY other use is "personal use".
 
> > If this is stealing, then so is drawing a picture of Snoopy and
> >hanging it on your bedroom door.
>
> No, because you drew it. The burning question is, " did you write the
> software you pirate ? "

No, the pirate didn't think it up, but the artist didn't think up Snoopy either.
HOWEVER, the pirate did produce the "replica", by copying the software using HIS
computer.

I know what your rebuttal will be: "That doesn't count because the computer did
it, not him." My response: It doesn't matter if the computer did it or not because
the computer is the pirate's slave, so it's work is his.
 
> Oh, so now we are shifting away from the real issue. Nice try, but no
> dice. Whatever your opinion is on the subject, or any other subject
> for that matter, is NOT the issue.

You bastard, you took the poor commentator's words out of context! Fortunately, I
read his complete comentary, so I know that it makes sense when in context.
 
> Translation - It doesn't directly affect me ( ie not MY missing income
> )  so I don't really care. But let someone try and steal a dollar from
> your pocket, and you'd be screaming bloody murder.......

Why should he care? This is a captialistic society, you know. It's not any of our
bussiness how much money the companies make.
 
> It is. You and your argument are not. FACT. Theft is a crime, no
> matter what is being stolen. Deal with it.

Is piracy theft? You haven't conviced me yet.

> Again, your agreement is not required for the law to be in effect.
> They are the law. If you don't like it, move somewhere else and live.
> You have that freedom.

Go to Iraq! So you're saying that it's OK if America becomes a tyranny, as long as
we give people the right to move away? You're a mennis to the ideals of our
nation!
 

> >       1. They ban you from making copies for any use; It's your property,
>
> WRONG again. You bought a license to use it in a limited fashion.Show
> me where it says the owner sells the rights to the property.

Once again, the license is a worthless document if I don't agree to it. Don't we 
own our property?


> On the contrary. It IS the issue.

No, it isn't. "Personal use" isn't a copyright violation. Back to the Snoopy
example...
 
> You agree  to the contract when you use the software.........It's in
> plain english.......

When do buyers agree to the contract?! So you're saying that, after we've already
bought the software, we can't use what we just bought without agreeing to a
contract? That's ridiculous! I don't care if it's in English or not!


> >       2. They disallow dissasembling the data of the game;
>
> Wev'e been over this property thing. You do not own the program. It's
> really that simple.

What is it with you people and this whole "you don't own what you buy" philosophy?
 
> > Does this mean that taking apart your toaster is
> >also a crime?
>
> No.

Why not? You're just dodging a very good example of proof that piracy should be
legetimate.
 
> >       3. They ban selling add-ons; I guess the guy who invented the car radio is now
> >a big crook.
>
> No.

Once again, you're dodging a very good point.

> >4. They tell you how many computers you may install it on; Refer to #1 and #2
>
> It's still thiers, remember??

IT'S NOT THEIRS!!! YOU BOUGHT IT!!!
 
> >5. They say that you only bought the "right" to use the software; Sorry id,
> >games aren't classified documents, you don't need exclusive rights to use them.
>
> Your interperetation. ( not based in fact, either,) not what's so, nor
> what is clearly written.

Get to the point! Are you saying that video games ARE an issue of national
security or did you just not have anything sensible to say?
 
> <rest of drivel snipped for lack of intelligible point>

You cut out the best part: The part that clearly explains why licenses are a "load
of crap". Obviously, you couldn't rebute it because it's common sense.