^Drag0n^ wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 10:54:
And you're wrong on the classification of the crime. It is theft. Again:
So, again, keep rationalizing.
The real point here is "who cares?" The idiots that are running the companies are using this as an excuse to make some of the most retarded marketing decisions north of the RIAA being pulled kicking and screaming into the internet age.
Jebus, did you even read the link you quoted? Read it again, dope.
"Gitarts was convicted of conspiracy to violate the NET Act (.pdf), which makes it a crime to infringe a copyright "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain"; to pirate $1,000 or more in music within 180 day period; or to distribute any pirated content before its release date. "
He was convicted of copyright infringement, and conspiracy to do so, NOT THEFT. The only one who said anything of theft was the prosecuting attorney, which was nothing more than grandstanding commentary on his part. If it was theft, then the case would have been about theft, the charges would have been about theft and the verdict would have been about theft. None of those were the case.
No one is arguing whether it's illegal or immoral, so there's no justifying of anything going on, you utter fucking retard, They're arguing the fact that for some reason you (and apparently some other idiot on here) seem incapable of understanding the difference.