What always amazes me is that in any discussion or conversation on a subject that will involve just about anyone at sometime in their life that there is a need to use such descriptive words in describing people that have true different opinions.  Now I'm not talking about the trolls and those that just want to stir the pot. 

It's no wonder nothing of great importance ever gets resolved or solved in any of out lifetimes. 

If this is about my post then I would like to point out that meaning of terms are not based on opinion. He didn't say he does not agree with Anarchy although he knows what it means. That would be his opinion.

 

It is always interesting to read vacuous ramblings from an amoral minority. It really puts me in my place...

Do you mean to equate laws with morals, or the following of laws (however immoral) with morality? Or do you mean to say that anyone who does not agree with following all laws all of the time has no moral standards?

What arguments do you have that show that the points put forward here that you don't agree with are all empty or baseless? What evidence do you have that the opinions put forward on this topic that run counter to your own are of a minority?

In actuality, you have not addressed the question of right or wrong in your comments. Your only concern has been what is legal and illegal. On that basis, it would be more fitting for you to be labeled as amoral. Not to say that would necessarily be an accurate description of your principles, only that it better fits with what you have said regarding this issue.

It doesn't help either that you have sweepingly categorised the opinions of some others as empty and aimless. You have chosen not to give a basis for this comment, so that would unfortunately make the term vacuous more applicable to your statement. Not to say that it entirely applies by necessity, but if one had to choose....

Amoral minority please.... if there was one set of morals in the world it would be a minority.... but because the world has so many different beliefts anyone could be considered amoral by someone else.

Thanks for the vacuous rambling though.... it was amusing

Oh, and I didn't get the impression anybody was trying to put you in your place..... strange you would think so.....

 

Definition of AMORAL

I never really grasped what that means. Everyone is equal. What does that entail exactly, from a legal as well as social standpoint, I'm sincerely interested in knowing.

 

LOL If everyone was of the same economical status, this statement would be almost true.

I am an artist. I make my work available for people to download. My work is protected by something called intellectual property law. If you believe that law has no value, then you advocate the stealing of my work. How can you expect me to respect you, when you do not respect the value of my work.

To me, you are not just amoral, you are a criminal. You would steal my work and claim you have done nothing wrong because you don't agree with the law which protects that work.

Don't bother responding, because you cannot. You cannot justify your opinions to me - they have the same value to me as the intellectual property rights of my work has to you.

I do not think it is possible to NOT break the law. For one, do you know what the law even is? Is a complete text of all of the laws available anywhere? No? Then how can you be so certain you have not broken one? Secondly, breaking the law is actually necessary for society to function. Did you know that the field manual for infiltrated spies actually recommends strict adherence to the law as a means of sabotage? If everyone in society blindly adhered to the laws, civilization would grind to an utter halt. Is that perhaps why you're so fixated on the adherence to the law above any other form of reason or common sense? So which country sent you?

That seems a very absolutist position. I do not think you will find anything who disagrees with the idea that artists should benefit from their work, but you do realize, of course, intellectual property laws cut both ways. Just as often as it protects an artist's work, it also protects the work from the artists. One only needs to look at all the games, movies, and whatnot, that have been trapped in IP limbo: The original artists deriving no benefit from the work, and also unable to use their own work. Under the present law, you could be arrested for "pirating" your OWN work! Is this, then, also right? Because that's what the law says. Or is this, perhaps, a sign that the present state of IP law is cripplingly flawed, and while it pays token lip service to the concept of protecting the rights of artists and may even do so on occasion, its REAL purpose is to serve the interests of those who have lobbied to get it to its present state?

Do we need some kind of IP law? Quite possibly. Is what we have now it? Almost certainly not.

 

You cannot 'be arrested for pirating your own work'.  You CAN however 'be arrested' for violating your OWN agreed terms of distribution rights SOLD/Licenced to a third party.

Copyright is about quite simply the 'right of copy' - that's why it's called 'copyright'.

The artist determines WHO by and how his works are to be copied/distributed/reused.

WHEN someone unlicenced by the Artist [or his agent] takes it upon himself to distribute the artist's work he is in violation of artist's copyright.

It's not bleeding brain surgery, you know...it's so bloody simple even 'that' moron can understand .... or an imbecile....

...but clearly not the 'unmarried mother' in the OP.

Here's something to ponder.

It is SIMPLY an OBSERVATION, nothing more...

...but maybe pertinent.

This forum thread is visible on several of Stardock's Forums.

The majority of contributors/respondents are from [just] two of them - Elemental [a gaming site] and Wincustomize [a skinning site].

Now, the majority of respondents from Elemental's Forum will be gamers - people who specifically purchase/DL/Play games.

The majority of respondents here from Wincustomize are skinners - people who are creative 'artists' creating IP for licenced distribution.

It is interesting to take close attention to the 'sides of the coin' on which the majority of each 'camp' appear to reside....over the issue of IP theft/protection/rights/penalty.

Now....it does NOT mean all gamers are not creators of IP...or that all skinning artists do NOT play games...but I'm sure some pedant [or troll] will claim that.

Who are you talking to? Who said to you that it's generally acceptable for intellectual property to be taken and not paid for?

The message being directed at you, I believe, was not that the work of artists should all be raped and pillaged, but rather that your categorical statement about disagreement with the law in general is a naive one.

 

sorry, but if you are talking about the things you show off at wc then your work is not protected by intellectual property law. it is just squares and gradients. there is nothing protectable in it in front of a real life court. 

on topic: the amount of the fine is ridiculous. 

"sorry, but if you are talking about the things you show off at wc then your work is not protected by intellectual property law. it is just squares and gradients. there is nothing protectable in it in front of a real life court."

Untrue.

Copyright is automatic upon creation of the work. You just have to prove that you are the owner of the image.

And the amount of the fine is ridiculous, where is the justice? They are trying to make a example of her, to bully others not to do the same. They are just trying to protect an old structured income stream which will continue to depreciate. The industry need some forward thinkers.

Ever notice that the elite of the world ask for greater punishment when their old structured systems begin to fail. They always have to be dragged  kicking and screaming to the next age.

Laws are just a way for those in power to bully those without power. Usually led by greed.

Oh my, now that is certainly an interesting way of looking at things, wonder if that interpretation will work as a defense in court.  I doubt it.

Does not matter in the end. We all die sooner or later.

There is no need to be afraid of the tools of the bully (courts and police).

JaFo just to let you know , there is a push in this country for a law that stipulates no mathematics can be given a copyright ie  code based applications are fair game for lawsuit for breaking said law. As I have said repeatedly the pirates are not the people you need to worry about. It is an issue of government and greed. As far as I know no one has offered me a image or skin that has your name on it but I like the one I have so I am not shopping. Image of a Dodge 68 Cuda photographed in front of the plant it was made in. And it is open to the public free and easy, show me something better or quit beating this dead horse. I don't think you have anything better than a Cuda that I would prefer to look at on a daily basis. Also make sure your ART is not based on 1's and 0's. Just the way i see it. Realistically how much money do you make, selling a skin if it sits in your files ,locked down for only your viewing? I forgot to mention that I think a law that allows the giveaway of someones hard thought and work is bullshit but in the USA it is about the money and I don't have enough! I will probably be dead  shortly after posting this! Thanks for playing!

Reading that makes me feel so much better...

*facepalm* I don't think anyone is saying that you don't have a right to protect your art.  I think the issue here is you don't have the right to get $1.5 million dollars for 24 songs worth $1 each from one person.... hence the law is flawed!

Oh, and there is no way to really enforce copyright laws.... so technically they have no value.   That is just how laws work!   If we were all moral saints like yourself (sarcasm), we wouldn't need laws.

Not everything is about you either..... always me, me, me.... I never stole your work and I don't advocate stealing your work.  I don't even know what your work is..... and I really doubt that in the modern world you have never taken someone elses work without permission (on purpose or not) and used it for some isignificant thing.... there in probably breaking the copyright law. 

I guess stating facts makes me a criminal....    But that just makes you a hypocrite.

I think you won't get an argument about the $1.5 million. 

She broke the law and should make restitution for a reasonable amount, which also isn't $1 for each song.  Lets be fair, how would that be paying for committing a crime. 

Did she have a chance to settle and decide not to? 

Ya I think somebody posted somewhere in here that she passed on either a 5 or 10 thousand dollar settlement offer.  Oopsie.

I think so.... but that could just means she is an idiot....