Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence?

I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes.

That I disagree with your opinion does not mean that do not understand your position.

Being that this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Period.

Yet you HAVE been disputing it... if you weren't you would have shut up by now, because this is a debate over opinion, and "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Yet you persist in debating.

My statement of mental deficiency is applied appropriately to people who would necessarily lack the sufficient mental capacity to engage in interpolation and extrapolation.

This is my opinion. And since this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Full Stop.

No, you imply it by failing to understand my position: "I disagree with you, and you are not changing my mind." This being a debate over opinion, "I disagree with you" should be the end of the debate. End paragraph.

Asserting my opinion does not make me a troll, which requires a disingenuous representation of an position.

I fully hold honestly and earnestly, that if someone really did need the explicit context, which you suggested, then they are mentally deficient.

If it makes you happier to label me a troll, and construct your opinion of me with such language, then well... fine. Such is your perogative.

However, please consider your own position. You keep forcing your opinion on me under the claim that I do not understand you.

I understand you fine. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. This will not change.

That you keep pressing this issue shows either assholery, stupidity, or mental retardation.

Your opinion is rejected. I understand that you reject my opinion.

THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DEBATE.

There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do.

Firstly, I'm going to apologize up front for descending yet again into offensive language again, but seriously, jesus fucking christ.

I mean, holy fucking shit, are you seriously this retarded that you need need me to spell everything out for you in such explicit terms?

Yes? Ok, then, let's get to it. I clarify here as explicitly as I possibly can be:

"You presented an initial critic about the presentation of my hypothetical situation. This opinion is that I should have been more explicit. Having evaluated your opinion, I do not find the criticism reasonable, and refuse to revise the presentation of my hypothetical situation in any way. The key reason for rebuking your criticism is that I have the opinion that any individual that is a part of my target audience will not need their hand to be held so explicitly during a hypothetical situation. I am not addressing idiots, retards, or any individuals of deficient mental capability."

I am finding it difficult to have a high opinion of your intelligence due to your constant need for such explicit explanations.

You are not a computer, you are not dumb... you should be capable of extrapolating and interpolating. Please start doing so.

My apologies if you have a mental variation which makes you incapable of properly understanding without pedantically explicit detail.

No, you do not understand me just fine.

Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."

I will restate more clearly: I do not think it fundamentally necessary to explicitly state the information, as it was a given in the hypothetical situation.

You do not seem able to understand my point either: my post proved the point I was trying to make.

I see, you are the type who marches, well dressed, sporting a fancy watch into a dark alley full of thugs twirling baseball bats with nails sticking out of them and declares "until they actually bash my brains out, I refuse to engage in gazing in crystal balls". Too bad your ilk finds itself floating in the river more often than not. One could think of it as natural selection of those who never grasped concepts like "pattern of behavior" or "probability of success".

See above. The past pattern of behaviour of the mega-corps, their lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mass media etc indicates clearly that the efforts have extremely high probability of success and that the effort required to reverse these changes is beyond the docile citizenry and, at best, it would take many decades to succeed.

I am objecting to your use of terms like "crystal ball" when not only we have a massive pile of evidence describing the successes past but we also have a pile of evidence highlighting the operations under way. If one were to apply your standards to, say, the sunrise, you would be claiming that the Sun "might" be raising tomorrow and that I should not be making any "crystal ball" predictions as to the event because I am "taking for granted" that the event would occur. The probability of success of the efforts of the mega-corps in the area of perverting laws to their liking is at this point in time only slightly lower than that of the Sun raising tomorrow.

What are you talking about? Efforts are presently underway to "homogenize" the copyright laws to the US standard (actually exceeding it) in all of the most industrialized countries, with the idea of overriding the wishes of local electorates via international treaty mechanisms. Or haven you heard about ACTA?!. There is no need for any "crystal balls" when we have the whole scheme spelled out in black and white by its own peddlers.

Unfortunately for this argument, the dominant military and economic powers, all dominated by the "big content" and "big media" conglomerates, have a way of "encouraging" change in their "partners" in this regard. See also under: Sweden and Norway.

Unless you are planing to host in Iran, for Iranian public, your are basically just stalling for time pretty much everywhere else.

There is all kind of free software that is copyrighted but free and legal to download. There are many works of music that are copyrighted but free and legal to download. Copyright means you own the rights to a work.

I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.

The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.

I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.

"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."

I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.

Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.

However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.

In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.

I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.

However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".

You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.

Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.

I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.

Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...

Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.

I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.

It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.

This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.

That's why he says that it "failed a constitutional challenge".

The Conseil constitutionnel ruled that the HADOPI law in its first form was anticonstitutional in that only a judge, after a trial, could restrict freedom of speech.

Then the law was modified so that the HADOPI authority would need to send its data to a judge for an accelerated procedure (as with traffic violations).

The Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that the new version of the HADOPI law was constitutional last December, so you might want to update your sources.

Before those goal posts go flying out of sight, remember that the original question was:

And so yes, provided it's a copyrighted song, making a copy under those circumstances is infringement.

No, it's making a copy. Perhaps you were confused because I mentioned "making a derivative work" in my previous answer. If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack.

When you rip a CD or a song from a CD, however, you are making a copy. You are also "format-shifting", which is allowable fair use under the Betamax doctrine. You can also be making an archival copy, which is also allowable fair use. These are all fine. They are distinct, however, from ripping audio from a video on YouTube.

As an aside, many have tried the song-vs-album argument in the past. Tenenbaum even tried this argument, saying that because he only copied individual songs, they were only a few minutes out of an hour-long album, so he was "sampling" at best. This, of course, failed. The album is a copyrighted compilation of copyrighted works. The individual songs are copyrighted works themselves.