🚀 go-pugleaf

Scout wrote:
> 
> Alex Bobbs <Alex...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
> >Good argument, wrong place. This arguement is the basis for copyrights and patents,
> >which only apply to commercial use and stuff like that.
> 
> Wrong. If you open the package, you agree to the terms and conditions.
> There is NO difference between commercial and personal use unless the
> copyright owner specifies it.If you don't like it, don't open the
> package.........it's a simple concept really. If you don't like the
> smell of shit, then don't hang around in the bathroom.
> 
> In other words, your refusal to accept (or agree with), the law does
> not exempt you from being accountable for breaking it.
> 
> >allegedly "steal"
> 
> No - DO steal. It is not an alleged crime if you admit to it.It's
> called a confession.
> 
> > They're just making "replicas" of
> >something they bought and rightfully own,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Or maybe you conveniently forgot how to read english???
> 
> > and are using it for personal use(Giving it
> >to friends and such).
> 
> Once it that "replica"  leaves your hands, it ceased being " 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 ? "
> 
> >Very true. There ARE other, legetimate ways to protest. HOWEVER, is it entirely our
> >responsibility to resolve this conflict?
> 
> 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.
> 
> >I'll take your word for it. Interesting stats.
> 
> 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.......
> 
> >DON'T EVEN PRETEND TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
> 
> It is. You and your argument are not. FACT. Theft is a crime, no
> matter what is being stolen. Deal with it.
> 
> >The "licenses" that make piracy a crime are the most unconstitutional thing since
> >affirmative action.
> 
> 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.
> 
> > Let's take a look at id softwares license, and what's
> >unconstitutional:
> 
> OK. Let's do that.
> 
> >       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.
> 
> > so you can
> >do whatever you want with it as long as you don't use the copies for commercial use,
> 
> WRONG again.
> 
> >which would violate copyright laws(a whole different issue)
> 
> On the contrary. It IS the issue.
> 
> >. Unless you sign a contract
> >when you buy the software, you shoudn't have any restrictions on how you use it.
> 
> You agree  to the contract when you use the software.........It's in
> plain english.......
> 
> >       2. They disallow dissasembling the data of the game; Again, how DARE they tell
> >you what to do with your own property!
> 
> Wev'e been over this property thing. You do not own the program. It's
> really that simple.
> 
> > Does this mean that taking apart your toaster is
> >also a crime?
> 
> No.
> 
> >       3. They ban selling add-ons; I guess the guy who invented the car radio is now
> >a big crook.
> 
> No.
> 
> >4. They tell you how many computers you may install it on; Refer to #1 and #2
> 
> It's still thiers, remember??
> 
> >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.
> 
> <rest of drivel snipped for lack of intelligible point>
Hi...

You are so concerned with the law and in no way concerned with morality.
What are you, some jack-ass nightly-masturbating lawyer or something?!
I don't CARE what the law says, I CARE about what's right and what's
wrong.  History has proven time and time again that what is illegal is
not necessarily wrong. (segregation comes to mind here, unless you're a
racist; if you are a racist all I can think of to say right now is FUCK
YOU.)

Oh, and don't go flaming me about the nightly masturbating thing because
it doesn't have something to do with the subject at hand--by emphasising
that fact instead of the subject at hand you ADMIT that you are a scum
sucking lawyer who's trying to crush me instead of working things out.

If you do such a thing, again, all I can think of to say to you right
now is FUCK YOU.

Alex