Netflix gets shafted by Starz
Obveeus
Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put a
90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through Netflix
starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the next
Spartacus season as well.
I'm very sad to hear this.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
What you said, plus I think Netflix getting into first run programming
is ludicrous. Concentrate on getting your entire library streaming
first.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-DCAED...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article <imh2cg$9av$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
>>
>> Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put
>> a
>> 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through
>> Netflix
>> starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
>> next
>> Spartacus season as well.
>>
>> I'm very sad to hear this.
>
> What you said, plus I think Netflix getting into first run programming
> is ludicrous. Concentrate on getting your entire library streaming
> first.
I agree with that. I think they would have been much better off going after
the Hulu market of TV streaming than the HBO market of original programming.
Of course, the other side of this is that even though Starz et al are
claiming that they are slowing the feed to Netflix as a result of Netflix
deciding to offer up a single show of original programming, the real truth
is that they would be slowing future Netflix stuff anyway. Really, the
agreement with Starz and Netflix was a ridiculous one in the first place:
great for Netflix, but bad for everyone else in the entertainment industry.
cloud dreamer
Netflix gets firstrun programming? Must only be in the US. I looked at
the Netflix Canadian site and the tv programs available were shows like
Firefly and Medium. Nothing current at all.
I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
trotsky
> On 25/03/2011 1:02 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
>>
>> Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to
>> put a
>> 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through
>> Netflix
>> starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
>> next
>> Spartacus season as well.
>>
>> I'm very sad to hear this.
>>
>>
>
> Netflix gets firstrun programming? Must only be in the US. I looked at
> the Netflix Canadian site and the tv programs available were shows like
> Firefly and Medium. Nothing current at all.
>
> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
You're obviously not looking for movies where teenagers get torn apart
like Rich.
Joe Snodgrass
> In article <imh2cg$9a...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
>
> > Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put a
> > 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through Netflix
> > starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the next
> > Spartacus season as well.
>
> > I'm very sad to hear this.
>
> What you said, plus I think Netflix getting into first run programming
> is ludicrous. Concentrate on getting your entire library streaming
> first.
Netflix has become big enough to fail. Make note of the CEO, because
after he wrecks the company, he'll run for Senator or Governor of
California, like Meg Whitman did after she wrecked eBay.
Obveeus
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> On 25/03/2011 1:02 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
>>
>> Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put
>> a
>> 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through
>> Netflix
>> starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
>> next
>> Spartacus season as well.
>>
>> I'm very sad to hear this.
>
> Netflix gets firstrun programming?
Netflix just bought the development rights to 'House of Cards' staring Kevin
Spacey. They outbid the cable/pay channels for the right to own the show,
thus entering the foray into firstrun programming. The show won't even air
for months, but the TV networks definitely have their undies in a bunch as
they feel threatened.
Previously, Netflix was airing 'Spartacus', 'Pillars of the Earth', etc...
firstrun programming that aired on Starz Network. 'Camelot' was set to
start airing next week in conjunction witht eh Starz premiere, but now
episodes will be delayed 60 days to help Starz ensure the exclusive value of
their product.
> Must only be in the US. I looked at the Netflix Canadian site and the tv
> programs available were shows like Firefly and Medium. Nothing current at
> all.
> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like to
watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or Blockbuster.
RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
cloud dreamer
Guess I'll stick to torrents.
;]
Obveeus
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
cloud dreamer
> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2011 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>>> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
>>>
>>> Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like to
>>> watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or
>>> Blockbuster.
>>> RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
>>> selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
>>
>> Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>
> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>
>
I subscribe to every movie channel offered by my provider. They are
getting my money.
..
Your Reckoning
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Obveeus?
Obveeus
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> On 25/03/2011 11:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2011 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>>>> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
>>>>
>>>> Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like
>>>> to
>>>> watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or
>>>> Blockbuster.
>>>> RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
>>>> selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
>>>
>>> Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>>
>> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>
> I subscribe to every movie channel offered by my provider. They are
> getting my money.
You subscribe to *every* movie channel and you think that Netflix isn't
worth the money?
cloud dreamer
From what I can see on the Canadian site? Yeah. It doesn't offer enough
current stuff to make it worthwhile. And the movie channels offer me
more than movies like first run shows like Spartacus and Dexter that I
can't get on any other channel here.
So, for about $20 a month, I'm getting more than I'd get on Netflix and
the few movies I take off torrents (one or two a month) are more than
paid for by my subscription.
And of course, in time, I'll have a cap on my internet here and will
have to pay more if I wanted to download from Netflix, so what am I
really saving in the long run?
trotsky
> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2011 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>>> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
>>>
>>> Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like to
>>> watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or
>>> Blockbuster.
>>> RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
>>> selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
>>
>> Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>
> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
...said the anonymouse.
Thanatos
wrote:
> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>
> > On 25/03/2011 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> >>> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
> >>
> >> Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like to
> >> watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or
> >> Blockbuster.
> >> RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
> >> selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
> >
> > Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>
> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
An individual downloading a show from torrents doesn't meet the elements
of criminal infringement. It's merely a civil violation, no different
than a breach of contract or a negligence claim.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
>
> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> > On 25/03/2011 1:02 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
> >>
> >> Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put
> >> a
> >> 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through
> >> Netflix
> >> starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
> >> next
> >> Spartacus season as well.
> >>
> >> I'm very sad to hear this.
> >
> > Netflix gets firstrun programming?
>
> Netflix just bought the development rights to 'House of Cards' staring Kevin
> Spacey. They outbid the cable/pay channels for the right to own the show,
> thus entering the foray into firstrun programming. The show won't even air
> for months, but the TV networks definitely have their undies in a bunch as
> they feel threatened.
>
> Previously, Netflix was airing 'Spartacus', 'Pillars of the Earth', etc...
> firstrun programming that aired on Starz Network. 'Camelot' was set to
> start airing next week in conjunction witht eh Starz premiere, but now
> episodes will be delayed 60 days to help Starz ensure the exclusive value of
> their product.
Which means, what, torrents?
Anim8rFSK
> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>
> > On 25/03/2011 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> >>> I saw nothing to justify $8 a month.
> >>
> >> Netflix is still mostly in the business of film, not TV. If you like to
> >> watch movies, Netflix is a much better option than pay cable or
> >> Blockbuster.
> >> RedBox is still the cheapest option for home viewing of movies, but the
> >> selection is limited and the delivery system much less convenient.
> >
> > Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>
> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
Still, is anybody really going to star paying for STARZ just to see
Camelot 60 days early?
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
Maybe her movie provider only offers AMC.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Your completely irrelevant to the crux of the point semantic correction is
noted.
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <imi6p5$n7k$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> > Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>>
>> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>
> Still, is anybody really going to star paying for STARZ just to see
> Camelot 60 days early?
Probably not. It might convince people not to drop Starz in favor of
Netflix, but I doubt it will even do that. Mostly, Starz got itself 'into
bed with the devil' when they made the deal with Netflix in the first place.
Pretty much all of their competitors and the media held that opinion,
anyway, as 'giving away' their product to Netflix in the first place seemed
like a poor method of increasing subscriber growth.
Starz does have to do something to increase awareness of the channel (as an
alternative or as an addition to HBO/Showtime), but the law of diminishing
returns suggests that continuing to use the Netflix deal as a 'loss leader'
is a bad idea.
As a side note, DirecTV came to the same sort of conclusion recently, when
they stated that 'Damages' was going to be the last cancelled show they
decided to pick up for scraps of awareness.
Thanatos
wrote:
It's hardly irrelevant. You accused him of criminal activity when it's
not. It pretty much invalidated your entire statement. Can't get more
relevant than that.
And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
"semantic", either. It's quite significant.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <iminco$vl1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <imi6p5$n7k$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>> >>
>> >> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>> >
>> > An individual downloading a show from torrents doesn't meet the
>> > elements
>> > of criminal infringement. It's merely a civil violation, no different
>> > than a breach of contract or a negligence claim.
>>
>> Your completely irrelevant to the crux of the point semantic
>> correction is noted.
>
> It's hardly irrelevant. You accused him of criminal activity when it's
Him?
> not. It pretty much invalidated your entire statement. Can't get more
> relevant than that.
>
> And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
> "semantic", either. It's quite significant.
It is significant for a legalese pinhead type that actually believes the
importance of the discussion was about technical civil/criminal violation
differences rather than about wrong/right issues. Like I said already, your
semantic correction was noted. Now, I'll also note your indifference to
wrong vs right as an actual value system.
trotsky
Did Horatio tell you that?
Your Reckoning
> "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <iminco$vl...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In article <imi6p5$n7...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> "cloud dreamer" <S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>
> >> >> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>
> >> > An individual downloading a show from torrents doesn't meet the
> >> > elements
> >> > of criminal infringement. It's merely a civil violation, no different
> >> > than a breach of contract or a negligence claim.
>
> >> Your completely irrelevant to the crux of the point semantic
> >> correction is noted.
>
> > It's hardly irrelevant. You accused him of criminal activity when it's
>
> Him?
>
> > not. It pretty much invalidated your entire statement. Can't get more
> > relevant than that.
>
> > And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
> > "semantic", either. It's quite significant.
>
> It is significant for a legalese pinhead type that actually believes the
> importance of the discussion was about technical civil/criminal violation
> differences rather than about wrong/right issues. Like I said already, your
> semantic correction was noted.
Classic contradiction. You couched your objection in legal terms:
"Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen."
but now you have been challenged on the legalities of the situation
you want to change to debating morality? Add to that the fact that a
sizable minority, if not a majority, of the citizens do not consider
filesharing to be morally wrong. And it is rather ironic that the
*original* objection you made also contains a classic erroneous
presupposition of dishonesty on dreamer's part.
> Now, I'll also note your indifference to wrong vs right as an actual value
> system.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Thanatos
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <iminco$vl1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <imi6p5$n7k$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess I'll stick to torrents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest citizen.
>>>>
>>>> An individual downloading a show from torrents doesn't meet the
>>>> elements
>>>> of criminal infringement. It's merely a civil violation, no different
>>>> than a breach of contract or a negligence claim.
>>>
>>> Your completely irrelevant to the crux of the point semantic
>>> correction is noted.
>>
>> It's hardly irrelevant. You accused him of criminal activity when it's
>
> Him?
>
>> not. It pretty much invalidated your entire statement. Can't get more
>> relevant than that.
>>
>> And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
>> "semantic", either. It's quite significant.
>
> It is significant for a legalese pinhead type
Only a complete moron would assert that the difference between a criminal
case and a civil case is "legalese". Even Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel
knows the difference.
If that's "legalese" then just about everything is "legalese" and the term
loses all meaning.
> that actually believes the
> importance of the discussion
> was about technical civil/criminal
> violation
That may be what *you* feel is important, but you aren't the objective
arbiter of such things. Others are free to decide what's important to them
and comment on it.
In this instance, correcting you yet again on your constant and erroneous
accusations of "theft" and criminality with regard to copyright is equally
as important as whatever bee du jour has landed in your bonnet today.
> Now, I'll also note your indifference to
> wrong vs right as an actual value system.
You can "note" whatever you please. Doesn't make it the least bit accurate.
The idea that you could somehow extrapolate accurate data on any person's
moral philosophy merely because they corrected your significant error on a
matter of law that you yourself brought up (and which *I* note that you
have yet to dispute, despite all your bluster) is laughable on it's face.
But hey, if it makes you feel all warm and superior, note away.
Obveeus
As always, you miss the forest for the trees. The statement I made in
response to Cloud Dreamer saying she would use torrents rather than pay for
Netflix was: 'Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest
citizen.' As always, you key up on the semantics (and yes, that is all you
are doing here) of the word 'Criminal' rather than the point of the
statement which is that 'taking without paying is cheaper than buying'.
Feel free to skip your semantic whinefest regarding torrent use not being an
act of 'taking'.
> If that's "legalese" then just about everything is "legalese" and the term
> loses all meaning.
>
>> that actually believes the
>> importance of the discussion
>> was about technical civil/criminal
>> violation
>
> That may be what *you* feel is important, but you aren't the objective
> arbiter of such things.
Actually, I am. It was my statement and I know the intent. Cloud Dreamer,
the other person in the conversation knew the intent. The intent was not to
send Cloud Dreamer off to jail or force Cloud Dreamer to hire a criminal
defense attorney or open up the conversation to semantic silliness that
ignores the actual point.
> Others are free to decide what's important to them
> and comment on it.
Whioch is why someone else called you out on your complete inability to
understand set theory or political leanings as you made some inaccurate
remark about Hugo Chavez in another thread.
> In this instance, correcting you yet again on your constant and erroneous
> accusations of "theft" and criminality with regard to copyright is equally
> as important as whatever bee du jour has landed in your bonnet today.
>
>> Now, I'll also note your indifference to
>> wrong vs right as an actual value system.
>
> You can "note" whatever you please. Doesn't make it the least bit
> accurate.
It most definitely is accurate. You act as a typical lawyer with your
comments here. No indication that you care, or even understand right vs.
wrong...only that you care about winning a semantically irrelevant point as
to whether or not 'theft' is a 'criminal act' as it relates to the 'taking'
of copywrighted material via torrent.
> The idea that you could somehow extrapolate accurate data on any person's
> moral philosophy
This coming from the guy that, in that other thread, claimed liberals are
people that try to take over and censor media outlets?
> merely because they corrected your significant error on a
> matter of law that you yourself brought up (and which *I* note that you
> have yet to dispute, despite all your bluster) is laughable on it's face.
The fact that you are asking me to dispute your correction is clear proof
that you still don't get it. I acknowledged your semantic point. No
argument is needed, other than to point out that you are , once again,
missing the point.
> But hey, if it makes you feel all warm and superior, note away.
Have you noticed how much you have in common with this season's 'former
federal agent' on Survivor?
Your Reckoning
> "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> relevant than that.
>
> >>> And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
> >>> "semantic", either. It's quite significant.
>
> >> It is significant for a legalese pinhead type
>
> > Only a complete moron would assert that the difference between a criminal
> > case and a civil case is "legalese". Even Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel
> > knows the difference.
>
> As always, you miss the forest for the trees. The statement I made in
> response to Cloud Dreamer saying she would use torrents rather than pay for
> Netflix was: 'Criminal activity is always cheaper than being an honest
> citizen.' As always, you key up on the semantics (and yes, that is all you
> are doing here) of the word 'Criminal' rather than the point of the
> statement which is that 'taking without paying is cheaper than buying'.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Obveeus? There was no suggestion that anyone take anything
-- copying is not taking, since taking means removing from another's
possession. If you take my car, I don't have it anymore. If you build
an exact duplicate of it from car parts, mine remains available to my
use.
> Feel free to skip your semantic whinefest regarding torrent use not being an
> act of 'taking'.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Obveeus? Observing that copying something is distinct from
taking it is not a "semantic whinefest" but a simple observation of
fact.
> > That may be what *you* feel is important, but you aren't the objective
> > arbiter of such things.
>
> Actually, I am.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Obveeus?
> It was my statement and I know the intent. Cloud Dreamer,
> the other person in the conversation knew the intent. The intent was not to
> send Cloud Dreamer off to jail or force Cloud Dreamer to hire a criminal
> defense attorney or open up the conversation to semantic silliness that
> ignores the actual point.
What does your intent have to do with television, Obveeus?
> > Others are free to decide what's important to them
> > and comment on it.
>
> Whioch is why someone else called you out on your complete inability to
> understand set theory or political leanings as you made some inaccurate
> remark about Hugo Chavez in another thread.
What do set theory and Thanatos's political leanings have to do with
television, Obveeus?
> >> Now, I'll also note your indifference to
> >> wrong vs right as an actual value system.
>
> > You can "note" whatever you please. Doesn't make it the least bit
> > accurate.
>
> It most definitely is accurate.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Obveeus?
> You act as a typical lawyer with your comments here.
What does your pontification have to do with television, Obveeus?
> No indication that you care, or even understand right vs. wrong...
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Obveeus?
> only that you care about winning a semantically irrelevant point as
> to whether or not 'theft' is a 'criminal act' as it relates to the 'taking'
> of copywrighted material via torrent.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Obveeus?
> > The idea that you could somehow extrapolate accurate data on any person's
> > moral philosophy
>
> This coming from the guy that, in that other thread, claimed liberals are
> people that try to take over and censor media outlets?
What does your question have to do with television, Obveeus?
> > merely because they corrected your significant error on a
> > matter of law that you yourself brought up (and which *I* note that you
> > have yet to dispute, despite all your bluster) is laughable on it's face.
>
> The fact that you are asking me to dispute your correction is clear proof
> that you still don't get it.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Obveeus?
> I acknowledged your semantic point.
What does your acknowledgment have to do with television, Obveeus?
> No argument is needed, other than to point out that you are , once
> again, missing the point.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Obveeus?
> > But hey, if it makes you feel all warm and superior, note away.
>
> Have you noticed how much you have in common with this season's 'former
> federal agent' on Survivor?
Classic pontification.
Thanatos
wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <iminco$vl1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> And the difference between a criminal violation and civil one is hardly
> >>> "semantic", either. It's quite significant.
> >>
> >> It is significant for a legalese pinhead type
> >
> > Only a complete moron would assert that the difference
> > between a criminal case and a civil case is "legalese".
> > Even Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel knows the difference.
>
> As always, you miss the forest for the trees.
No, I see them all. I'm just not ooohing and ahhing over your personal
favorite tree. In fact, I'm pointing out a part of the forest you'd
rather people not see.
> As always, you key up on the semantics (and yes, that is all you
> are doing here)
I'll reiterate: the difference between a criminal violation and civil
one is hardly "semantic" It's quite significant. You just don't like
being called on your crap.
Are you actually disputing that or do you think it's perfectly fine to
falsely accuse people of crimes, then brush it off as mere semantics?
> the point of the statement which is that 'taking without paying
> is cheaper than buying'.
Then why don't you just say *that* instead of (yet again) accusing
someone of theft or criminal behavior?
You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
this issue.
> Feel free to skip your semantic whinefest regarding torrent use
> not being an act of 'taking'.
LOL! You jump into a debate on an issue involving the law, then whine
like a petulant child when people point out your gross legal errors.
> > If that's "legalese" then just about everything is "legalese"
> > and the term loses all meaning.
> >
> >> that actually believes the
> >> importance of the discussion
> >> was about technical civil/criminal
> >> violation
> >
> > That may be what *you* feel is important, but you aren't the
> > objective arbiter of such things.
>
> Actually, I am.
No, you're not. Once you put the statement out there, your control over
the topic ends. Everyone else decides what's important to them based on
what you said and then comments on it.
> It was my statement and I know the intent.
Fine. That still doesn't make you king overlord of the topic.
> The intent was not to send Cloud Dreamer off to jail or force
> Cloud Dreamer to hire a criminal defense attorney
Then why use the word "crime" at all? I think we both know the answer.
> > Others are free to decide what's important to them
> > and comment on it.
>
> Whioch is why someone else called you out on your complete inability to
> understand set theory or political leanings as you made some inaccurate
> remark about Hugo Chavez in another thread.
Sure. They were wrong, but yes, that's an example of people deciding
what's important and commenting on it.
Glad you're not only seeing the light, but that you agree that it's
legitimate.
> >> Now, I'll also note your indifference to
> >> wrong vs right as an actual value system.
> >
> > You can "note" whatever you please. Doesn't make it the least bit
> > accurate.
>
> It most definitely is accurate.
It most definitely is not. It's merely a ridiculous statement on your
part, for which you have no proof whatsoever.
> You act as a typical lawyer with your comments here.
Yeah, I use logic and facts and hold you to what you say and point out
when what you say is full of shit.
How tragic.
> No indication that you care, or even understand right vs.
> wrong...
Actually, most people would agree that someone who keeps people from
being smeared with false accusations of criminal activity is doing the
right thing.
And they'd also agree that the person who is accusing others falsely and
doing so knowingly is in the wrong.
Apparently in your twisted value system, copyright trumps all, and if
you have to wildly overstate your case, make false claims, and accuse
others of non-existent crimes, that's all cool, just so long as
copyright is respected.
How's that for a seat-of-the-pants analysis of *your* morals?
> > The idea that you could somehow extrapolate accurate data
> > on any person's moral philosophy
>
> This coming from the guy that, in that other thread, claimed
> liberals are people that try to take over and censor media
> outlets?
No, I didn't say they're trying, I said historically that's what they've
done.
Accuracy isn't your strong point is it?
I guess that's just another "semantic" distinction. Funny how often
that's the case whenever you're wrong about something.
And it sure ain't the conservatives that pushed for and won The Fairness
Doctrine the first time around and it isn't conservatives that have been
rumbling about reinstating it.
Liberals claim to love free speech, right up until the moment you say
something they don't like.
> > merely because they corrected your significant error on a
> > matter of law that you yourself brought up (and which *I*
> > note that you have yet to dispute, despite all your bluster)
> > is laughable on it's face.
>
> The fact that you are asking me to dispute your correction is
> clear proof that you still don't get it.
I'm not asking you to dispute anything. I'd actually prefer you
acknowledge that you were wrong, since you clearly were. However, we
both know you'd sooner gnaw off your right arm than do that, so instead
here we are with you ridiculously claiming that civil vs. criminal is
"legalese" and "semantics".
Bottom line: you accused someone of engaging in criminal activity.
That's a pretty serious charge, and you did it based on nothing more
than an expressed intent to download a torrent.
You were wrong. Just say so.
> I acknowledged your semantic point.
No, you didn't, because it wasn't one. You acknowledged your own
personal fantasy.
> > But hey, if it makes you feel all warm and superior, note away.
>
> Have you noticed how much you have in common with this season's 'former
> federal agent' on Survivor?
LOL! Nice try.
Invid Fan
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <imh2cg$9av$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
> >
> > Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put a
> > 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through Netflix
> > starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
> > next
> > Spartacus season as well.
> >
> > I'm very sad to hear this.
>
> What you said, plus I think Netflix getting into first run programming
> is ludicrous. Concentrate on getting your entire library streaming
> first.
It's not "their" library. They can't stream what the studios won't let
them, and the Netflix business model in the end may not pay studios
enough to allow everything to be downloaded basically for free on
demand.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Anim8rFSK
Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-DCAED...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <imh2cg$9av$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/media/25starz.html?src=busln
> > >
> > > Netflix is getting into firstrun programming, so Starz has decided to put
> > > a
> > > 90 day delay on future streaming of their original programs through
> > > Netflix
> > > starting with Camelot on April 1st. The 90 day delay will apply to the
> > > next
> > > Spartacus season as well.
> > >
> > > I'm very sad to hear this.
> >
> > What you said, plus I think Netflix getting into first run programming
> > is ludicrous. Concentrate on getting your entire library streaming
> > first.
>
> It's not "their" library. They can't stream what the studios won't let
> them, and the Netflix business model in the end may not pay studios
> enough to allow everything to be downloaded basically for free on
> demand.
Hmm. I'm not sure why the studios would care whether Netflix streamed
or mailed you a DVD. And stuff pops on and off my queue ever month,
dropping back from streaming to snail mail and back to streaming again.
I assumed that this was some technical problem, and not contractural.
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-1C587...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
It is a contractual thing, but I haven't been able to figure out why. Maybe
the studios have some desire to support obsolete business segments
(producing discs because they have some union contract where they have to
pay for discs even if they don't make any?). Forcing the viewing to take
place via snail mail certainly slows down the consumption of the products,
but the costs are *much* higher for everyone involved.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
I've had Netflix Instant since the first of the year. Right now I've
got 13 films that have dropped out of streaming (some are available on
DVD, some aren't available at all) and 3 or 4 that dropped out and
dropped back IN again. In under 90 days. It is a puzzlement ...
Invid Fan
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
You're watching much more of their stuff, and Netflix charges less and
therefore has less to give to the studio. Netflix also has to buy the
disks, replacing damaged ones, and they often slow down the speed heavy
renters get their DVDs mailed out at. If more then $2 of my sister's
$10 Netflix bill is being distributed to all the sources of what she's
streaming, I'd be surprised.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> this issue.
Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is? For that
matter, is it even possible to do the former without doing the latter?
It would seem that any given pirate has to either (a) break the law by
propagating or (b) give a hearty "FU!" to other pirates by *not*
propagating, even though others are expecting our given pirate to play
by the collective pirate code. Or is this another of those "They're more
like guidelines" kind of things?
And yes, I do see the irony of expecting (even remotely) that someone
who would disrespect copyright would respect the "rules" of torrenting.
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI
Anim8rFSK
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > this issue.
>
> Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
Yes, although "download" does not necessarily mean "torrent"
For that
> matter, is it even possible to do the former without doing the latter?
Yes, but I'm told that if you belong to a private tracker, whatever that
is, you have to keep your ratio of up and down high enough to not get
your sorry ass kicked to the curb.
> It would seem that any given pirate has to either (a) break the law by
I might mention that 'torrent' does not necessarily equal 'illegal'
either. For instance, a lot of software tutorial are torrented,
intentionally, by their creator, so that they can spread the joy without
huge bandwidth hits on their own site.
> propagating or (b) give a hearty "FU!" to other pirates by *not*
> propagating, even though others are expecting our given pirate to play
> by the collective pirate code. Or is this another of those "They're more
> like guidelines" kind of things?
>
> And yes, I do see the irony of expecting (even remotely) that someone
> who would disrespect copyright would respect the "rules" of torrenting.
Honor among theives? I gather there's enough to keep the system viable.
Your Reckoning
> In article <imnvu0$v4...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > And yes, I do see the irony of expecting (even remotely) that someone
> > who would disrespect copyright would respect the "rules" of torrenting.
>
> Honor among theives?
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Anim8rFSK? Nice typo, too.
Thanatos
> Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > this issue.
>
> Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
Sure. Not only is it bad form, it's a copyright violation. But it's a
civil violation, no more serious than a breach of contract or a dispute
over who pays for a fender-bender. No one's going to go to prison over
it.
However, Obveeus has a history of claiming otherwise and accusing people
of criminal activity for such things. There is indeed such a thing as
criminal copyright infringement but the elements of that offense are
much more extensive and involved than merely downloading (or even
propagating) a torrent file.
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > > this issue.
> >
> > Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> > not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
>
> Yes, although "download" does not necessarily mean "torrent"
>
> For that
> > matter, is it even possible to do the former without doing the latter?
>
> Yes, but I'm told that if you belong to a private tracker, whatever that
> is, you have to keep your ratio of up and down high enough to not get
> your sorry ass kicked to the curb.
>
> > It would seem that any given pirate has to either (a) break the law by
>
> I might mention that 'torrent' does not necessarily equal 'illegal'
> either. For instance, a lot of software tutorial are torrented,
> intentionally, by their creator, so that they can spread the joy without
> huge bandwidth hits on their own site.
Yep, and many people distribute their own videos, films, and music via
torrent for free in order to gain exposure. It's gotten that some
established musicians are now using free torrent releases of selected
tracks in order to promote their albums.
That's why all these reactionary calls by our esteemed legislators to
"crack down" on torrents and effectively outlaw them are ridiculous.
It's like trying to outlaw the VCR because some people might tape some
copyrighted TV shows, despite it's many other legitimate uses. Oh,
wait... they tried to do that, too.
It's also not surprising that the list of politicians who are at the
forefront of the "torrent = crime" movement is also the list of
politicians who are at the top of the RIAA and MPAA's contribution list.
Jim G.
Anim8rFSK sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:32:43 -0700:
> In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > It would seem that any given pirate has to either (a) break the law by
>
> I might mention that 'torrent' does not necessarily equal 'illegal'
> either. For instance, a lot of software tutorial are torrented,
> intentionally, by their creator, so that they can spread the joy without
> huge bandwidth hits on their own site.
Fair point, and I'm obviously speaking in terms of pirated content. But
yeah, I have downloaded plenty of legal torrents over time. I have a
copy of Miro that gets a fair workout for various things.
> > propagating or (b) give a hearty "FU!" to other pirates by *not*
> > propagating, even though others are expecting our given pirate to play
> > by the collective pirate code. Or is this another of those "They're more
> > like guidelines" kind of things?
> >
> > And yes, I do see the irony of expecting (even remotely) that someone
> > who would disrespect copyright would respect the "rules" of torrenting.
>
> Honor among theives?
Yes, that's the phrase I had in mind. :)
> I gather there's enough to keep the system viable.
The problem here is that the pirate who doesn't playing by the rules can
hardly be taken to court by those who do. It'd be like filing a
complaint with the police because someone stole your stash of cocaine,
or something.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0700:
> In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > > this issue.
> >
> > Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> > not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
>
> Sure. Not only is it bad form, it's a copyright violation.
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. So if someone is downloading a
torrent of, say, last Friday's episode of FRINGE, that person would be
violating copyright if he *didn't* propagate the torrent *and* he would
be violating copyright if he *did* propagate it?
> But it's a
> civil violation, no more serious than a breach of contract or a dispute
> over who pays for a fender-bender. No one's going to go to prison over
> it.
In this context, what's the difference between your "violation" and
Obveeus's "crime"? Someone is still doing something that he or she
should not be doing, right?
Gheerax IV
An apt comparison, since cocaine possession is also a victimless crime.
Thanatos
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0700:
> > In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > > > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > > > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > > > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > > > this issue.
> > >
> > > Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> > > not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
> >
> > Sure. Not only is it bad form, it's a copyright violation.
>
> I'm not clear on what you're saying here. So if someone is downloading a
> torrent of, say, last Friday's episode of FRINGE, that person would be
> violating copyright if he *didn't* propagate the torrent *and* he would
> be violating copyright if he *did* propagate it?
If he's obtaining or making an unauthorized copy, it's a civil
violation, yes.
> > But it's a civil violation, no more serious than a breach of
> > contract or a dispute over who pays for a fender-bender. No
> > one's going to go to prison over it.
>
> In this context, what's the difference between your "violation" and
> Obveeus's "crime"?
A civil violation is a matter of dispute between two private parties for
which the remedy is financial compensation. A criminal violation is an
offense against the state for which the remedy is prison.
> Someone is still doing something that he or she
> should not be doing, right?
Sure. But it's like walking across your neighbor's lawn without
permission. That's something you should not be doing and it's a common
law civil violation-- trespass to land-- for which he could take you to
court and sue for damages. If he wins, you have to pay him some money
and it's over.
Compare that to a criminal copyright infringement felony charge, where
you're spending a minimum year in prison, probably paying a fine to the
state, and bearing the burden of being an ex-con for the rest of your
life, and the difference between the civil and criminal violation
becomes stark.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:15:02 -0700:
> In article <54mvo6tp67jv99hpt...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0700:
> > > In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > > > > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's your only
> > > > > point. You've played the "download = crime" card too many times (and
> > > > > been corrected on it) for it not to be one of your central themes with
> > > > > this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> > > > not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
> > >
> > > Sure. Not only is it bad form, it's a copyright violation.
> >
> > I'm not clear on what you're saying here. So if someone is downloading a
> > torrent of, say, last Friday's episode of FRINGE, that person would be
> > violating copyright if he *didn't* propagate the torrent *and* he would
> > be violating copyright if he *did* propagate it?
>
> If he's obtaining or making an unauthorized copy, it's a civil
> violation, yes.
Which means that, in the eyes of the law, it's something that he should
not be doing, right?
In fact, when I Google "civil violation wiki," the first link is to
Wikipedia's "Summary Offence" page, which starts out with:
"A summary offence, also known as a petty crime"
So, at first glance, it would seem that Obveeus isn't all that far
off-base.
> > > But it's a civil violation, no more serious than a breach of
> > > contract or a dispute over who pays for a fender-bender. No
> > > one's going to go to prison over it.
> >
> > In this context, what's the difference between your "violation" and
> > Obveeus's "crime"?
>
> A civil violation is a matter of dispute between two private parties for
> which the remedy is financial compensation. A criminal violation is an
> offense against the state for which the remedy is prison.
>
> > Someone is still doing something that he or she
> > should not be doing, right?
>
> Sure. But it's like walking across your neighbor's lawn without
> permission. That's something you should not be doing and it's a common
> law civil violation-- trespass to land-- for which he could take you to
> court and sue for damages. If he wins, you have to pay him some money
> and it's over.
Right. And in the eyes of the law, the trespasser was doing something
that he should not have been doing, right?
> Compare that to a criminal copyright infringement felony charge, where
> you're spending a minimum year in prison, probably paying a fine to the
> state, and bearing the burden of being an ex-con for the rest of your
> life, and the difference between the civil and criminal violation
> becomes stark.
True, but that's like saying that robbery isn't a crime because it's not
as serious of an infraction as murder. In reality, they're both wrongs,
just as illegal torrenting is a wrong.
Cellular Automaton
> illegal torrenting is a wrong.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Gysin?
Thanatos
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:15:02 -0700:
> > In article <54mvo6tp67jv99hpt...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0700:
> > > > In article <imnvu0$v44$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanatos sent the following on 3/26/2011 12:50 PM:
> > > > > > You're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that's
> > > > > > your only point. You've played the "download = crime"
> > > > > > card too many times (and been corrected on it) for it
> > > > > > not to be one of your central themes with this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't it generally considered to be bad form to download torrents and
> > > > > not also keep propagating them, or whatever the term is?
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Not only is it bad form, it's a copyright violation.
> > >
> > > I'm not clear on what you're saying here. So if someone is downloading a
> > > torrent of, say, last Friday's episode of FRINGE, that person would be
> > > violating copyright if he *didn't* propagate the torrent *and* he would
> > > be violating copyright if he *did* propagate it?
> >
> > If he's obtaining or making an unauthorized copy, it's a civil
> > violation, yes.
>
> Which means that, in the eyes of the law, it's something that he should
> not be doing, right?
I suppose we should be more accurate here: under US law, yes. Problem
is, the internet goes everywhere and just like it's illegal to smoke pot
in Texas, it's perfectly fine to do it in Amsterdam, filesharing isn't
illegal everywhere in the world, either.
Whose law applies to the internet, to a torrent file which is
distributed in pieces across the globe?
> In fact, when I Google "civil violation wiki," the first link is to
> Wikipedia's "Summary Offence" page, which starts out with:
>
> "A summary offence, also known as a petty crime"
>
> So, at first glance, it would seem that Obveeus isn't all that far
> off-base.
Actually, he is. So is Wikipedia if it's calling civil offenses crimes.
A civil wrong, by definition, can't be a crime. The burdens of proof
alone are completely different.
Law school 101.
> > > > But it's a civil violation, no more serious than a breach of
> > > > contract or a dispute over who pays for a fender-bender. No
> > > > one's going to go to prison over it.
> > >
> > > In this context, what's the difference between your "violation" and
> > > Obveeus's "crime"?
> >
> > A civil violation is a matter of dispute between two private parties for
> > which the remedy is financial compensation. A criminal violation is an
> > offense against the state for which the remedy is prison.
> >
> > > Someone is still doing something that he or she
> > > should not be doing, right?
> >
> > Sure. But it's like walking across your neighbor's lawn without
> > permission. That's something you should not be doing and it's a common
> > law civil violation-- trespass to land-- for which he could take you to
> > court and sue for damages. If he wins, you have to pay him some money
> > and it's over.
>
> Right. And in the eyes of the law, the trespasser was doing something
> that he should not have been doing, right?
I don't think you're getting the point here. No one ever claimed that
copyright infringement was fine and dandy. It's just not a *crime* when
it takes the form of filesharing.
> > Compare that to a criminal copyright infringement felony charge, where
> > you're spending a minimum year in prison, probably paying a fine to the
> > state, and bearing the burden of being an ex-con for the rest of your
> > life, and the difference between the civil and criminal violation
> > becomes stark.
>
> True, but that's like saying that robbery isn't a crime because it's not
> as serious of an infraction as murder.
No, it's not like that at all. Both robbery and murder are defined under
the law (specifically, the penal code) as criminal violations, so they
are both crimes regardless of which is more serious.
Downloading a torrent is defined under the law as a civil wrong, so
calling it a crime is factually wrong.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> Downloading a torrent is defined under the law as a civil wrong, so
> calling it a crime is factually wrong.
Welcome to the Thantos world or semantic lessons indicating a replete and
repeated inability to see the forest through the trees.
Thanatos
wrote:
Same verse, different day. Only a moron believes that the difference
between a civil suit and a criminal trial is "semantic".
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-132FDD...@news.giganews.com...
Neither of these two things was what was being discussed, no matter how
desperately you wish it were true.
Steve Newport
next Spartacus season
SN: I'm not planning to watch either one.
Thanatos
wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-132FDD...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <imrj2u$l0q$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Downloading a torrent is defined under the law as a civil wrong, so
> >> > calling it a crime is factually wrong.
> >>
> >> Welcome to the Thantos world or semantic lessons indicating a replete and
> >> repeated inability to see the forest through the trees.
> >
> > Same verse, different day. Only a moron believes that the difference
> > between a civil suit and a criminal trial is "semantic".
>
> Neither of these two things was what was being discussed
Not being discussed by you, perhaps. I don't feel obligated to constrain
myself to only whatever topics you want to pursue.
Don't like that? Welcome to Usenet, chief.
Thanatos
Newpor...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
Stop the presses!
Mason Barge
Yeah that's weird enough, but how about DVD's that drop out of production?
I tried to find a copy of Whit Stillman's "Last Days of Disco" and it was
out of print -- cheapest copy was like $60.
Then it went back into print.
And Disney does it all the time. I don't know how many times they have
yanked Pinocchio and Snow White off the shelves and then started
reprinting them. The only thing that has stayed out of print is
(unfortunately IMO) "Song of the South".
Steve Newport
I don't know how many times they have yanked Pinocchio and Snow White
off the shelves and then started reprinting them. The only thing that
has stayed out of print is (unfortunately IMO) "Song of the South".
SN: I agree. We are getting a DVD restoration of the film version of
WHERE'S CHARLEY? I would have watched the CAMELOT mini-series if it
included the Lerner and Loewe songs.
"There's nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music.
Musicals carry us to a different time and place, but in the end, they
also teach us a little bit of something about ourselves. In many ways,
the story of Broadway is also intertwined with the story of America.
Some of the greatest singers and songwriters Broadway has ever known
came to this country on a boat with nothing more than an idea in their
head and a song in their heart. And they succeeded the same way that so
many immigrants have succeeded through talent and hard work and sheer
determination. Over the years, musicals have also been at the forefront
of our social consciousness, challenging stereotypes, shaping our
opinions about race and religion, death and disease, power and politics.
But perhaps the most American part of this truly American art form is
its optimism. Broadway music calls us to see the best in ourselves and
in the world around us."-- President Obama
"Musicals blow the dust off your soul."-- Mel Brooks
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on 3/28/2011 9:42 PM:
Exactly.
> Problem
> is, the internet goes everywhere and just like it's illegal to smoke pot
> in Texas, it's perfectly fine to do it in Amsterdam, filesharing isn't
> illegal everywhere in the world, either.
>
> Whose law applies to the internet, to a torrent file which is
> distributed in pieces across the globe?
As you point out, a Texan won't be arrested for smoking pot in
Amsterdam, but a Dutchman will be busted for it in Austin. As such, and
outside of the realm of diplomats, international conventions at the
moment would seem to give priority to the scene of the act, as opposed
to the nationality of the actor. And given that you just acknowledged
that an American on American soil is doing something he should not be
doing in this context, it would seem that most instances of domestic
torrenting of this type would therefore be wrong, regardless of where a
given packet (or whatever it's called) of a torrent originates.
I suppose the Seamuses of the world could all go to some country that
doesn't share American/Canadian views on piracy in order to legally
torrent an episode of a show that they could just legally buy closer to
home for $2 on iTunes, but that would seem to be a bit of additional and
unnecessary travel expense. :)
>> In fact, when I Google "civil violation wiki," the first link is to
>> Wikipedia's "Summary Offence" page, which starts out with:
>>
>> "A summary offence, also known as a petty crime"
>>
>> So, at first glance, it would seem that Obveeus isn't all that far
>> off-base.
>
> Actually, he is. So is Wikipedia if it's calling civil offenses crimes.
> A civil wrong, by definition, can't be a crime. The burdens of proof
> alone are completely different.
>
> Law school 101.
By one definition. For now, let's look again at your earlier comparison
to trespassing. In doing so, I find this in Encarta's dictionary:
tres·pass [tréspəss, tréss pàss]
intransitive verb (past and past participle tres·passed, present
participle tres·pass·ing, 3rd person present singular tres·pass·es)
1. encroach on somebody: to intrude on somebody's privacy or time
2. break moral or social law: to commit a sin or break a social law
(archaic)
3. law enter somebody else's land unlawfully: to go onto somebody
else's land or enter somebody else's property without permission
4. law cause injury: to cause injury to the person, property, or rights
of another
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
Based on the sixth word of #3, it would be perfectly legitimate to refer
to a trespasser as a "criminal," as I can find countless definitions of
"criminal" that refer to someone acting unlawfully. It may not be the
best word to use in the context and may overstate things in some senses
of the word, but that doesn't make it incorrect. As such, I would argue
that your parsing of "violation" versus "crime" is beside the point and
fails to address the legitimacy of Obveeus's choice of words.
>>>>> But it's a civil violation, no more serious than a breach of
>>>>> contract or a dispute over who pays for a fender-bender. No
>>>>> one's going to go to prison over it.
>>>>
>>>> In this context, what's the difference between your "violation" and
>>>> Obveeus's "crime"?
>>>
>>> A civil violation is a matter of dispute between two private parties for
>>> which the remedy is financial compensation. A criminal violation is an
>>> offense against the state for which the remedy is prison.
>>>
>>>> Someone is still doing something that he or she
>>>> should not be doing, right?
>>>
>>> Sure. But it's like walking across your neighbor's lawn without
>>> permission. That's something you should not be doing and it's a common
>>> law civil violation-- trespass to land-- for which he could take you to
>>> court and sue for damages. If he wins, you have to pay him some money
>>> and it's over.
>>
>> Right. And in the eyes of the law, the trespasser was doing something
>> that he should not have been doing, right?
>
> I don't think you're getting the point here. No one ever claimed that
> copyright infringement was fine and dandy. It's just not a *crime* when
> it takes the form of filesharing.
I still think that you're parsing the word "crime" too finely and (for
whatever reason) trying to limit the scope of the word. Let me offer
this from Encarta, as well:
crime [krim]
(plural crimes)
noun
1. illegal act: an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as
required by law
2. illegal activity: activity that involves breaking the law
3. immoral act: an act considered morally wrong
4. unacceptable act: a shameful, unwise, or regrettable act (informal)
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
Using the above, I can *easily* see the Seamuses of the world clearly
violating #3 and 4, whereas I freely admit that I don't have the
expertise required to fully address #1 and #2.
Still, #3 and #4 alone tell me that Obveeus is perfectly justified in
using the word "criminal" in this context, even if he's not using the
definition for "crime" that you want to be using here yourself.
>>> Compare that to a criminal copyright infringement felony charge, where
>>> you're spending a minimum year in prison, probably paying a fine to the
>>> state, and bearing the burden of being an ex-con for the rest of your
>>> life, and the difference between the civil and criminal violation
>>> becomes stark.
>>
>> True, but that's like saying that robbery isn't a crime because it's not
>> as serious of an infraction as murder.
>
> No, it's not like that at all. Both robbery and murder are defined under
> the law (specifically, the penal code) as criminal violations, so they
> are both crimes regardless of which is more serious.
>
> Downloading a torrent is defined under the law as a civil wrong, so
> calling it a crime is factually wrong.
As I just pointed out, there are legitimate definitions for crime that
are not dependent on the finer points of legal parsing. You seem to
acknowledge that Obveeus is correct to the extent that domestic
torrenters are doing something that they should not be doing, which, to
me, is the vast majority of the moral battle here. The rest amounts to
little more than wordplay, IMHO. Bottom line: whether or not Seamus
torrenting HEIDI is a "crime" in the strictest legal sense does not
change the fact that (a) he's doing something that he should not be
doing and (b) it *is* a crime by at least *some* perfectly legitimate
definitions of the word "crime."
Thanatos
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
Which would be fine if Obveeus had said it's wrong. He didn't. He said
it's a crime. That's not true.
> Based on the sixth word of #3, it would be perfectly legitimate to refer
> to a trespasser as a "criminal," as I can find countless definitions of
> "criminal" that refer to someone acting unlawfully.
All crimes are unlawful acts but not all unlawful acts are crimes.
> It may not be the best word to use in the context and may overstate
> things in some senses of the word, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
Actually, it does in this case. Filesharing is indisputably *not* a
crime. Per the U.S. Code and U.S. Appellate and Supreme Court decisions.
Since someone who engages in that behavior can never be charged with a
crime for doing it, calling it criminal activity is fallacious.
> > I don't think you're getting the point here. No one ever claimed that
> > copyright infringement was fine and dandy. It's just not a *crime* when
> > it takes the form of filesharing.
>
> I still think that you're parsing the word "crime" too finely and (for
> whatever reason) trying to limit the scope of the word.
The U.S. Code defines the parameters of copyright law in America. It
sets out the elements of both civil and criminal infringement.
Filesharing does not meet the elements of criminal infringement. In
addition, there is ample federal court precedent at all levels that
reinforce the principle that mere filesharing does not rise to level of
criminal infringement.
trotsky
> The U.S. Code defines the parameters of copyright law in America. It
> sets out the elements of both civil and criminal infringement.
> Filesharing does not meet the elements of criminal infringement. In
> addition, there is ample federal court precedent at all levels that
> reinforce the principle that mere filesharing does not rise to level of
> criminal infringement.
I found this vaguely fascinating, Thanny, so I looked up the law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
§ 506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement. —
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall
be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the
infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or
more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than
$1,000; or
Part (B) sure makes it look like anyone who downloads $1000 worth of
dvds in a 180 day period has committed a criminal act. Did the law
degree you got out of the Cracker Jack box tell you otherwise?
Thanatos
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> Part (B) sure makes it look like anyone who downloads $1000 worth of
> dvds in a 180 day period has committed a criminal act.
That's why you're an idiot.
In order for it to qualify as "commercial advantage or private financial
gain", the person making the copies has to sell them or otherwise
commercially profit from them. Downloading a torrent of a TV show and
watching it at home has never been held to qualify. Just the opposite,
actually, despite the RIAA and the MPAA's heavy lobbying to the contrary.
trotsky
> In article<PeudnWgUBKY4-QnQ...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky<gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Part (B) sure makes it look like anyone who downloads $1000 worth of
>> dvds in a 180 day period has committed a criminal act.
>
> That's why you're an idiot.
>
> In order for it to qualify as "commercial advantage or private financial
> gain", the person making the copies has to sell them or otherwise
> commercially profit from them.
That's completely wrong. Section (A) is in no way said to be a
prerequisite for section (B). If this is the case, prove it.
Downloading a torrent of a TV show and
> watching it at home has never been held to qualify.
You're an ass. Either cite the law that says so, or cite the
precedent(s) that say so.
Just the opposite,
> actually, despite the RIAA and the MPAA's heavy lobbying to the contrary.
I don't believe you.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on 3/30/2011 8:47 PM:
Again, you have your reasons for wanting to parse this in the way you're
parsing it, but I've shown that there are other, broader definitions of
"crime" that are perfectly legitimate and that make Obveeus's use of
"criminal" in this context accurate under those definitions. Put another
way, Wikipedia and various dictionaries are not "wrong"; they just don't
accept the limitations that you want to impose on the terminology. And
in the present case, you simply don't get to decide for Obveeus what
definition of the word(s) he is and isn't allowed to use in his
commentary. So, in the end, the best that you can legitimately get away
with is to tell him that you don't agree with his terminology, but you
are not justified in calling him wrong about it.
I had a similar situation recently where I was initially accused of
being wrong for calling a book "light." And the reason I was "wrong" was
because I was thinking of the "not dark" definition of the word, whereas
the person disagreeing with me was thinking of the idea of something
being insubstantial and not challenging. This meant that we were both
right in our own way (because the book *was* substantial and
challenging, in addition to being not dark), but she was ultimately
wrong because she did not have the right to decide for me which
definition of the word I was using. In the same way, even if you are
100% accurate in your interpretation of the legal parsing aspects of
"crime," it still does not make Obveeus wrong in the way that *he*
intends the word to be used.
Thanatos
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on 3/30/2011 8:47 PM:
> > In article <in09cf$60c$7...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I still think that you're parsing the word "crime" too finely and (for
> >> whatever reason) trying to limit the scope of the word.
> >
> > The U.S. Code defines the parameters of copyright law in America. It
> > sets out the elements of both civil and criminal infringement.
> > Filesharing does not meet the elements of criminal infringement. In
> > addition, there is ample federal court precedent at all levels that
> > reinforce the principle that mere filesharing does not rise to level of
> > criminal infringement.
>
> Again, you have your reasons for wanting to parse this in the way you're
> parsing it, but I've shown that there are other, broader definitions of
> "crime"
And when applied to filesharing, those definitions are erroneous.
> that are perfectly legitimate and that make Obveeus's use of
> "criminal" in this context accurate under those definitions. Put another
> way, Wikipedia and various dictionaries are not "wrong"; they just don't
> accept the limitations that you want to impose on the terminology.
The courts don't see it that way. Falsely accusing someone of a crime is
defamation. And it's no defense to a libel charge to claim you were
using some kind of Wikipedia-derived "broader definition". Accuse
someone of a crime when it's not a crime and if they sue you, you're
gonna lose.
The U.S. Code and the penal codes of the various states define what are
and are not crimes. Not Wikipedia.
> And in the present case, you simply don't get to decide for
> Obveeus what definition of the word(s) he is and isn't allowed
> to use in his commentary.
I never claimed to hold some kind of position of authority over him
which requires him to have my permission to use certain words. He can
use whatever words he pleases, but if he uses them to say things that
aren't true, I'm equally free to point it out and comment on it.
> So, in the end, the best that you can legitimately get away
> with is to tell him that you don't agree with his terminology,
> but you are not justified in calling him wrong about it.
Again, he accused someone of a crime for behavior which has been
*specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States as being
non-criminal.
He was wrong.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:51:06 -0700:
You misspelled "'*specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States
as being non-criminal on the basis of the definitions that I want to
force him to use and the context in which I want to force him to use
them."
Thanatos
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:51:06 -0700:
> > In article <in30l2$qii$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So, in the end, the best that you can legitimately get away
> > > with is to tell him that you don't agree with his terminology,
> > > but you are not justified in calling him wrong about it.
> >
> > Again, he accused someone of a crime for behavior which has been
> > *specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States as being
> > non-criminal.
>
> You misspelled "'*specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States
> as being non-criminal on the basis of the definitions that I want to
> force him to use and the context in which I want to force him to use
> them."
Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force him to do
or say anything. He's free to do or say whatever he likes. But when he
makes erroneous and factually wrong statements, I'm equally as free to
point them out and comment on them.
And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
talking about there.
hzergel
> As you point out, a Texan won't be arrested for smoking pot in
> Amsterdam, but a Dutchman will be busted for it in Austin. As such, and
> outside of the realm of diplomats, international conventions at the
> moment would seem to give priority to the scene of the act, as opposed
> to the nationality of the actor. And given that you just acknowledged
> that an American on American soil is doing something he should not be
> doing in this context, it would seem that most instances of domestic
> torrenting of this type would therefore be wrong, regardless of where a
> given packet (or whatever it's called) of a torrent originates.
What does any of that have to do with whether or not it's civil or
criminal infringement, Gysin?
> I suppose the Seamuses of the world could all go to some country that
> doesn't share American/Canadian views on piracy
Who is "Seamus", Gysin? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
> in order to legally torrent an episode of a show that they could just
> legally buy closer to home for $2 on iTunes
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Canadians don't have
access to American TV online, only via Canadian networks' rebroadcasts
and (eventually) fairly expensive DVD sets in bricks-and-mortar
stores.
Furthermore, buying things online requires a credit card, which not
everyone will have who does have the asking price.
> but that would seem to be a bit of additional and unnecessary travel expense. :)
What does that have to do with television, Gysin?
> By one definition. For now, let's look again at your earlier comparison
> to trespassing.
What does your trespassing have to do with television, Gysin?
> In doing so, I find this in Encarta's dictionary:
>
> tres·pass [tréspəss, tréss pàss]
> intransitive verb (past and past participle tres·passed, present
> participle tres·pass·ing, 3rd person present singular tres·pass·es)
> 1. encroach on somebody: to intrude on somebody's privacy or time
> 2. break moral or social law: to commit a sin or break a social law
> (archaic)
> 3. law enter somebody else's land unlawfully: to go onto somebody
> else's land or enter somebody else's property without permission
> 4. law cause injury: to cause injury to the person, property, or rights
> of another
>
> Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
> reserved.
>
> Based on the sixth word of #3, it would be perfectly legitimate to refer
> to a trespasser as a "criminal," as I can find countless definitions of
> "criminal" that refer to someone acting unlawfully. It may not be the
> best word to use in the context and may overstate things in some senses
> of the word, but that doesn't make it incorrect. As such, I would argue
> that your parsing of "violation" versus "crime" is beside the point and
> fails to address the legitimacy of Obveeus's choice of words.
Classic erroneous presupposition. Referring to materials published by
Microsoft to define the severity of copyright infringement is like
having the fox guard the henhouse. Indeed, copyright-reliant
businesses are well known for erroneous propaganda, some foisted on
school-children and more foisted on everyone who pops a DVD into a
player; their dire warnings invariably mention jail time and hundreds
of thousands of dollars of fines and claim that all unauthorized use
carries such penalties, failing to note the existence of de minimis
copying (no penalties), fair use (no penalties), unauthorized uses
that don't infringe one of the exclusive rights of the copyright
holder (no penalties), and civil infringement (no jailtime, much lower
fines except when they really want to make an example out of someone).
> I still think that you're parsing the word "crime" too finely and (for
> whatever reason) trying to limit the scope of the word.
What does your thought have to do with television, Gysin?
> Let me offer this from Encarta, as well
Because Microsoft is such an unbiased source.
> Using the above, I can *easily* see the Seamuses of the world clearly
> violating #3 and 4, whereas I freely admit that I don't have the
> expertise required to fully address #1 and #2.
Who is "Seamus", Gysin? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
> Still, #3 and #4 alone tell me that Obveeus is perfectly justified in
> using the word "criminal" in this context, even if he's not using the
> definition for "crime" that you want to be using here yourself.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Gysin?
> As I just pointed out, there are legitimate definitions for crime that
> are not dependent on the finer points of legal parsing. You seem to
> acknowledge that Obveeus is correct to the extent that domestic
> torrenters are doing something that they should not be doing, which, to
> me, is the vast majority of the moral battle here.
What does your misguided moral crusade have to do with television,
Gysin?
> The rest amounts to little more than wordplay, IMHO.
What does your wordplay have to do with television, Gysin?
> Bottom line: whether or not Seamus torrenting HEIDI is a "crime" in
> the strictest legal sense does not change the fact that (a) he's doing
> something that he should not be doing and (b) it *is* a crime by at
> least *some* perfectly legitimate definitions of the word "crime."
Who is "Seamus", Gysin? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias. And who is "HEIDI", Gysin? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias. And what does your classic unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim have to do with television, Gysin?
> --
> Jim G.
> Waukesha, WI
What does that have to do with television, Gysin?
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:55:32 -0700:
> In article <7a7dp6dq4tls2us9n...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:51:06 -0700:
> > > In article <in30l2$qii$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, in the end, the best that you can legitimately get away
> > > > with is to tell him that you don't agree with his terminology,
> > > > but you are not justified in calling him wrong about it.
> > >
> > > Again, he accused someone of a crime for behavior which has been
> > > *specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States as being
> > > non-criminal.
> >
> > You misspelled "'*specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States
> > as being non-criminal on the basis of the definitions that I want to
> > force him to use and the context in which I want to force him to use
> > them."
>
> Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force him to do
> or say anything.
You want to force him to kowtow to your definition of "crime" instead of
allowing him to use his own perfectly legitimate alternative definition.
> He's free to do or say whatever he likes. But when he
> makes erroneous and factually wrong statements, I'm equally as free to
> point them out and comment on them.
"He's not using the definitions I want him to use" and "He is making
erroneous and factually wrong statements" are not synonymous.
But you're going to continue to pretend that you don't understand this,
so I'm not going to bloody my head against the wall.
> And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
> talking about there.
"You misspelled x or y or z" is a shtick in which the problem(s) go
beyond mere spelling. You might say, "The Dodgers are going to win the
NL pennant this year," whereas I might reply, "I'm pretty sure you just
misspelled "Brewers," or some such thing.
In the present case, you "misspelled" everything that I added after
"non-criminal."
chicagofan
bj
Thanatos
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:55:32 -0700:
> > In article <7a7dp6dq4tls2us9n...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanatos sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:51:06 -0700:
> > > > In article <in30l2$qii$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > > > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So, in the end, the best that you can legitimately get away
> > > > > with is to tell him that you don't agree with his terminology,
> > > > > but you are not justified in calling him wrong about it.
> > > >
> > > > Again, he accused someone of a crime for behavior which has been
> > > > *specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States as being
> > > > non-criminal.
> > >
> > > You misspelled "'*specifically ruled* by the courts of the United States
> > > as being non-criminal on the basis of the definitions that I want to
> > > force him to use and the context in which I want to force him to use
> > > them."
> >
> > Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force him to do
> > or say anything.
>
> You want to force him to kowtow to your definition of "crime" instead of
> allowing him to use his own perfectly legitimate alternative definition.
Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force him to do
or say anything.
Pointing out someone's errors is hardly the same thing as trying to
force them to do something.
If it were, then you're just as guilty, since you clearly believe I'm
making an error here and you are commenting on it, so according to your
own criteria, your trying to force me to kowtow to your position and say
things I don't believe or want to say.
> > He's free to do or say whatever he likes. But when he
> > makes erroneous and factually wrong statements, I'm equally
> > as free to point them out and comment on them.
>
> "He's not using the definitions I want him to use" and "He is making
> erroneous and factually wrong statements" are not synonymous.
Whether they're synonymous or not is irrelevant to whether I'm
attempting to force him to do anything.
> But you're going to continue to pretend that you don't understand this,
> so I'm not going to bloody my head against the wall.
I understand it just fine. I just don't agree. I don't believe you're
correct.
> > And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
> > talking about there.
>
> "You misspelled x or y or z" is a shtick in which the problem(s) go
> beyond mere spelling. You might say, "The Dodgers are going to win the
> NL pennant this year," whereas I might reply, "I'm pretty sure you just
> misspelled "Brewers," or some such thing.
>
> In the present case, you "misspelled" everything that I added after
> "non-criminal."
Ah, puerile word games. Gotcha.
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:54:52 -0700:
In this case it is. Because he can only be "wrong" if he's forced to use
*your* definition of crime. Most of us seem to realize that it's up to
Obveeus which definition he has in mind, but you seem to be a special
case.
> If it were, then you're just as guilty, since you clearly believe I'm
> making an error here and you are commenting on it, so according to your
> own criteria, your trying to force me to kowtow to your position and say
> things I don't believe or want to say.
You're essentially saying, "There's only one acceptable definition here,
and I'm telling Obveeus that he's wrong because he's not using the
definition that I deem to be acceptable." As such, you're wrong. I'm
saying, "There are various definitions, and Obveeus is free to use
whichever one he wants to use, and at least two of them are acceptable
and correct when used in this context." As such, I am correct.
That's the difference. If I'm forcing you to do anything, it's to admit
that you don't get to limit Obveeus's options here.
> > > He's free to do or say whatever he likes. But when he
> > > makes erroneous and factually wrong statements, I'm equally
> > > as free to point them out and comment on them.
> >
> > "He's not using the definitions I want him to use" and "He is making
> > erroneous and factually wrong statements" are not synonymous.
>
> Whether they're synonymous or not is irrelevant to whether I'm
> attempting to force him to do anything.
>
> > But you're going to continue to pretend that you don't understand this,
> > so I'm not going to bloody my head against the wall.
>
> I understand it just fine. I just don't agree. I don't believe you're
> correct.
Let's review. Here are the definitions from Encarta that I posted
earlier:
crime
crime [krim]
(plural crimes)
noun
1. illegal act: an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as
required by law
2. illegal activity: activity that involves breaking the law
3. immoral act: an act considered morally wrong
4. unacceptable act: a shameful, unwise, or regrettable act (informal)
[13th century. Via French < Latin crimen (stem crimin- ) "judgment" <
cernere "decide"]
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
If you don't believe that I'm correct here, then explain to me how
Obveeus's statements are incorrect in the context of definitions #3 and
4, at the very least. You continue to insist that he is wrong, so you
must have proof that #3 and 4 don't apply here. The only other
alternative would seem to be that you want to force him to use #1 or
#2. If there's another interpretation of your thought process here,
please share it.
> > > And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
> > > talking about there.
> >
> > "You misspelled x or y or z" is a shtick in which the problem(s) go
> > beyond mere spelling. You might say, "The Dodgers are going to win the
> > NL pennant this year," whereas I might reply, "I'm pretty sure you just
> > misspelled "Brewers," or some such thing.
> >
> > In the present case, you "misspelled" everything that I added after
> > "non-criminal."
>
> Ah, puerile word games. Gotcha.
Lighten up, Francis.
Thanatos
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:54:52 -0700:
> > In article <g36gp696sm0v738mn...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanatos sent the following on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:55:32 -0700:
> > > > In article <7a7dp6dq4tls2us9n...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > You want to force him to kowtow to your definition of
> > > "crime" instead of allowing him to use his own perfectly
> > > legitimate alternative definition.
> >
> > Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force
> > him to do or say anything.
> >
> > Pointing out someone's errors is hardly the same thing as trying to
> > force them to do something.
>
> In this case it is. Because he can only be "wrong" if he's forced to use
> *your* definition of crime.
That still doesn't mean I'm forcing him to do anything. The only way
that could be remotely true is if Obveeus is so concerned about whether
I believe he's right or wrong that he feels he has no choice but to do
whatever I say. Since that's obviously not the case, I'm not forcing him
to do anything, as evidenced by the fact that he has not retracted his
comment or in any way adapted his rhetoric to suit me.
> Most of us seem to realize that it's up to Obveeus which
> definition he has in mind, but you seem to be a special
> case.
Actually, to be precise, he originally accused the guy of "criminal
activity", a phrase which doesn't share the broader definitions of
"crime" that you've been touting.
It's roughly akin to that Florida preacher who burned the Koran. Did he
do something morally wrong? Most people believe he did, if for no other
reason than it seems to have put Westerners in danger in Afghanistan.
But to accuse him of criminal activity for burning the Koran would be
factually wrong. It was not a crime for him to do what he did and even
if you want to use some bizarre definition of crime that isn't limited
to actual crimes, it would still be factually wrong to accuse him of
criminal activity.
> > If it were, then you're just as guilty, since you clearly believe I'm
> > making an error here and you are commenting on it, so according to your
> > own criteria, your trying to force me to kowtow to your position and say
> > things I don't believe or want to say.
>
> You're essentially saying, "There's only one acceptable definition here,
> and I'm telling Obveeus that he's wrong because he's not using the
> definition that I deem to be acceptable."
I never said anything about acceptable. I said there's only one
factually correct definition, especially in the context of a debate
about legalities. And since we're being hyper-technical, we should stop
debating the definition of "crime" and stick with what he actually said,
which was "criminal activity". I admit I've strayed as much as anyone
over the course of this thread in that regard, but it really does change
things contextually.
> As such, you're wrong.
And according to your criteria, by commenting on what you believe to my
error, you're "forcing me to kowtow to you."
> That's the difference. If I'm forcing you to do anything, it's to admit
> that you don't get to limit Obveeus's options here.
But you're not forcing me to do anything, any more than I'm forcing
Obveeus to do anything. If you were, I'd have already conceded to you.
Res ipsa loquitur. Since I haven't conceded, I obviously wasn't forced
into anything and you have no power to make it happen, regardless. Just
as I have no power or desire to force Obveeus to do or say anything.
> > > > And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
> > > > talking about there.
> > >
> > > "You misspelled x or y or z" is a shtick in which the problem(s) go
> > > beyond mere spelling. You might say, "The Dodgers are going to win the
> > > NL pennant this year," whereas I might reply, "I'm pretty sure you just
> > > misspelled "Brewers," or some such thing.
> > >
> > > In the present case, you "misspelled" everything that I added after
> > > "non-criminal."
> >
> > Ah, puerile word games. Gotcha.
>
> Lighten up, Francis.
And now come the personal insults.
What's next, trotsky?
Jim G.
Thanatos sent the following on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:12:45 -0700:
> In article <e36ip6le9lc6dqmhj...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos sent the following on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:54:52 -0700:
> > > In article <g36gp696sm0v738mn...@4ax.com>,
> > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanatos sent the following on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:55:32 -0700:
> > > > > In article <7a7dp6dq4tls2us9n...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You want to force him to kowtow to your definition of
> > > > "crime" instead of allowing him to use his own perfectly
> > > > legitimate alternative definition.
> > >
> > > Once again, I never claimed the ability or the desire to force
> > > him to do or say anything.
> > >
> > > Pointing out someone's errors is hardly the same thing as trying to
> > > force them to do something.
> >
> > In this case it is. Because he can only be "wrong" if he's forced to use
> > *your* definition of crime.
>
> That still doesn't mean I'm forcing him to do anything.
So if he tells you that he was using definition #3, you'll say something
like, 'In that case, Obveeus, I apologize for calling you wrong when, in
fact, I am the one who has been wrong here all along," or words to that
effect? Really?
> The only way
> that could be remotely true is if Obveeus is so concerned about whether
> I believe he's right or wrong that he feels he has no choice but to do
> whatever I say. Since that's obviously not the case, I'm not forcing him
> to do anything, as evidenced by the fact that he has not retracted his
> comment or in any way adapted his rhetoric to suit me.
He's probably just enjoying watching you squirm.
> > Most of us seem to realize that it's up to Obveeus which
> > definition he has in mind, but you seem to be a special
> > case.
>
> Actually, to be precise, he originally accused the guy of "criminal
> activity", a phrase which doesn't share the broader definitions of
> "crime" that you've been touting.
criminal
crim·i·nal [krímmin'l]
noun (plural crim·i·nals)
somebody acting illegally: somebody who has committed a crime
adjective
1. punishable as crime: punishable as a crime under the law
2. prosecuting criminals: relating to or involved in the prosecution
and punishment of people accused of committing crimes
3. relating to criminals: relating to or done by criminals
4. morally wrong: morally wrong, whether illegal or not
5. unacceptable: shameful, unwise, or regrettable (informal)
a criminal waste of resources
[15th century. Directly or via French < late Latin criminalis "of crime"
< Latin crimin- (see crime)]
-crim·i·nal·ly, , adverb
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
Once again, using #4, "criminal activity" can mean "activity that is
morally wrong." Using #5, it can mean "activity that is unacceptable or
shameful."
Etc., etc.
> It's roughly akin to that Florida preacher who burned the Koran. Did he
> do something morally wrong? Most people believe he did, if for no other
> reason than it seems to have put Westerners in danger in Afghanistan.
> But to accuse him of criminal activity for burning the Koran would be
> factually wrong. It was not a crime for him to do what he did and even
> if you want to use some bizarre definition of crime that isn't limited
> to actual crimes, it would still be factually wrong to accuse him of
> criminal activity.
All you're doing here is pointing out that criminal activity is morally
wrong, as opposed to morally wrong activity being criminal. And in any
case, it has nothing to do with the fact that Obveeus has at least two
definitions of "criminal" that will make his statement accurate,
regardless of how often or how loudly you attempt to claim otherwise.
> > > If it were, then you're just as guilty, since you clearly believe I'm
> > > making an error here and you are commenting on it, so according to your
> > > own criteria, your trying to force me to kowtow to your position and say
> > > things I don't believe or want to say.
> >
> > You're essentially saying, "There's only one acceptable definition here,
> > and I'm telling Obveeus that he's wrong because he's not using the
> > definition that I deem to be acceptable."
>
> I never said anything about acceptable. I said there's only one
> factually correct definition,
Wow. The fact that you can continue to try to make this claim after I
have posted objective and tangible evidence to the contrary speaks to
how deeply you are mired in denial here.
> especially in the context of a debate
> about legalities.
How do you know that he was using the context of legalities?
> And since we're being hyper-technical, we should stop
> debating the definition of "crime" and stick with what he actually said,
> which was "criminal activity". I admit I've strayed as much as anyone
> over the course of this thread in that regard, but it really does change
> things contextually.
See above re "criminal activity."
> > As such, you're wrong.
>
> And according to your criteria, by commenting on what you believe to my
> error, you're "forcing me to kowtow to you."
No, I'm letting the dictionary do that for me.
> > That's the difference. If I'm forcing you to do anything, it's to admit
> > that you don't get to limit Obveeus's options here.
>
> But you're not forcing me to do anything, any more than I'm forcing
> Obveeus to do anything. If you were, I'd have already conceded to you.
> Res ipsa loquitur. Since I haven't conceded,
Concession has nothing to do with it. The dictionary clearly shows that
you were wrong, and the fact that you can remain in denial for as long
as you choose to remain in denial is irrelevant.
> I obviously wasn't forced
> into anything and you have no power to make it happen, regardless.
To the extent that you can choose to look silly and continue to deny the
obvious, your right; I cannot force you to admit to anything.
> Just
> as I have no power or desire to force Obveeus to do or say anything.
Which is a good thing, as you had no leverage whatsoever.
But you do raise a valid point. In the backquotes above, I say at one
point: "You want to force him to kowtow to your definition," with the
operative word being "want." However, at other times, I have assumed
that this context was understood. So to be clear, I'm not saying that
you can force Obveeus to accept your choice of definition; I'm saying
that you *want* to be able to force him to so that you can win a debate
point. I apologize if I haven't been consistently clear on this.
> > > > > And "specifically ruled" was spelled correctly. Not sure what you're
> > > > > talking about there.
> > > >
> > > > "You misspelled x or y or z" is a shtick in which the problem(s) go
> > > > beyond mere spelling. You might say, "The Dodgers are going to win the
> > > > NL pennant this year," whereas I might reply, "I'm pretty sure you just
> > > > misspelled "Brewers," or some such thing.
> > > >
> > > > In the present case, you "misspelled" everything that I added after
> > > > "non-criminal."
> > >
> > > Ah, puerile word games. Gotcha.
> >
> > Lighten up, Francis.
>
> And now come the personal insults.
>
> What's next, trotsky?
It's a line from STRIPES. Seriously, do you have no sense of humor, or
is that just a shtick that you're using? (And I'm pretty sure that we're
about the same age, so the odds of you *not* being familiar with STRIPES
would seem to be about .0000001%.)