Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
I’m not sure about the UK, and maybe this is why my meaning didn’t catch you. They are legally governed under different sets of laws in the US. I don’t support piracy in any way and, frankly, you should not make assumptions that I do. I’ve been consistent this entire time that my goal here is open truth, nothing more or less.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Your logic of Occam’s razor belies your lack of understanding in it. You are completely misusing it.
Occam’s razor is not “Simple means probable.” It is “The simplest answer is most often the best one.” This does not mean that the likelihood of the answer dictates its simplicity or even vice versa. Did you even read the wiki that you linked?
The problem here is that we don’t have any real numbers. To get an accurate number of the pirated copies, we’d need TPB’s numbers, which are not shared, and the numbers of only the -real- versions that get released on the sites that actually do share statistics, which are very hard to get. Without that, any assumption is just that: An assumption. In other words, I agree with you. All we can do is speculate. That, however, is not very useful. As you might note, reading the article on Occam’s razor, the point of the theory is making the smallest amount of assumptions possible, not just making the assumptions that are most convenient.
The problem with enforceability of downloads is not whether they can be tracked or not, because they can. It is whether the file is what it says it is, first, and whether there is a legal reason for it to be downloaded, which there might be. There are several situations in which it is actually completely legal to download a certain piece of video. However, there are no situations in which it is legal to upload. Since it is impossible to verify whether a situation for legal downloading is present, it is not enforced at all. It would, in other words, be literally impossible to hold up in court. This is true whether a Czar is present or not.
Now, still furthermore, an ISP does not have the right to look at what its users are doing, in most cases. without the permission of the users any more than Sprint has the right to monitor every phone call that you make. We, as Americans, have a right to privacy. When a user uploads, however, any downloader has access to that uploader’s IP address and therefore all an intellectual property owner-as-downloader must do is note that IP, note the ISP, and send a letter to the provider in notification.
To make downloading something a crime that can be enforced, the law would have to be changed to remove that provision which allows the taping of programs off of TV, which is totally legal, and the creation of personal copies of video, which is totally legal. It could happen, but I have a feeling that it would cause a large public outcry. Congress is so bought by the AA’s, however, that I’d not find it too unlikely that we will see it soon.
On the other hand, though, protests of the strongarm tactics of those two organizations, inasmuch as they’ve literally bought the right to essentially be judge and jury of who has “stolen” from them and to bring cases to court without proof and without the ability of the defendants to be present at their own trials, perhaps we’ll see some sort of paradigm shift here in which we see some of the rights of the public restored.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
I already told you, Occam’s Razor is an off topic thing, there’s not much point arguing with you about its definition. Even if it is wrong, you know what my point is, and it’s stupid to keep arguing semantics.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
… I only corrected you because you assumed to correct me when you were wrong. If you don’t want to be called out on being wrong, read an article before you link it. You can’t just present some utterly silly and incorrect interpretation of a piece of information and then say “well! I’m done” and not expect anybody to point out that what you said was silly and incorrect. Sorry.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
… I only corrected you because you assumed to correct me when you were wrong. If you don’t want to be called out on being wrong, read an article before you link it. You can’t just present some utterly silly and incorrect interpretation of a piece of information and then say “well! I’m done” and not expect anybody to point out that what you said was silly and incorrect. Sorry.[/quote]
Again, don’t care. This conversation has nothing to do with this thread.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
… I only corrected you because you assumed to correct me when you were wrong. If you don’t want to be called out on being wrong, read an article before you link it. You can’t just present some utterly silly and incorrect interpretation of a piece of information and then say “well! I’m done” and not expect anybody to point out that what you said was silly and incorrect. Sorry.[/quote]
Again, don’t care. This conversation has nothing to do with this thread.[/quote]
… this, or, rather, several posts ago, would be the point where you stop bringing it up, then. If you bring it up, especially if you present utterly incorrect information, I will respond. When you respond, saying “I don’t care.” What you are saying is that, in fact, you do care because you insist on having the last word.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Good fucking god, why are you being so petty?
I’m not trying to have the last post. I really just don’t give a flying fuck anymore about what Occam’s Razor is.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
… Why, exactly, are you still responding, then? I’m not the one swearing, here, mind you. I’m answering your questions and statements quite calmly. Who’s the one who looks like he or she cares, now? The one who is calm, or the one crassly swearing as if it’s the end of the world that they don’t have complete predictive control of a conversation? As for pettiness, well, I’ll assume that you’re as aware of that definition as the previous one, since you’ve shown that you care very little about seeming to be petty, by your actions on this forum.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
So anyways….
To anyone else who hasn’t seen this thread, what do you think of them appointing an Actual Czar to this sort of thing?
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
We all know what they say about arguing on the internet……
Anyways, back on topic, considering the bill has only gone through a committee, it will prolly get struck down simply for the reason it undermines the justice department. Also, while piracy DOES have an effect on overall sales, suing them into oblivion is not the answer. Though, I will admit, even if I buy a legitimate copy of a PC game, I will still get the no-cd crack because, one I wont need the disc anymore, and two, it disables all that DRM Crap.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Actually, the laws our separate (correct me if I’m wrong) due to the difference between intellectual and physical property. Nonetheless, there is no moral difference and thus any difference that should affect the magnitude of the crime.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
… that’s partially what I was saying. As to whether the usual lack of jail time for IP theft, to use a term that you might find more agreeable (not always), since it is always “solved” in civil courts denotes a lesser crime, well I suppose that’s up to your interpretation. I wasn’t making any implications about severity, but instead nature.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
I assumed you meant ‘order’ like ‘order of magnitude’.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Ah. Nope. More like ‘class, phylum, order’ kind of order. 
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Which makes a lot more sense.
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Yay!
Pirates are screwed, Big Boss Czar is gonna getcha!
Lin will reply to this post.