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.

This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".

This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".

Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.

To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.

In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".

If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.

However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.

You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*

I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.

When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.

Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.

You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:

[snip]

This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!

That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)

If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.

However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over style and presentation.

I take your criticism that I could have presented the information to the audience more clearly, and I respectfully disagree.

I'm a woman.

I took your criticism to "behave like a adult, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism." (I did paraphrasing you some here.)

Since you wanted to talk about how I don't take criticism, I presented to you -- as criticism -- a proper way to offer criticism so that the person won't freak out and get pissy.

However, you apparently do not understand how to properly couch criticism to make it non-offensive, and perhaps you need a more clear explanation as to why "I wonder if" is there. This is because it makes the comment less hostile, and rude. This use of the subjunctive as well as indirection is by far the most common way to express demands and criticism to others.

"Pass the salt" is rude. "Would you pass the salt" is less rude. "Can you pass the salt?" even less rude, and "Could you pass the salt?" is close to the least rude possible in English without going overboard. "Would you please be able to pass the salt, if it would not be too difficult?" has started to become smacking of pretentiousness, however, when an individual is extremely hostile, sometimes this could possibly become necessary.

Notice, how when I'm presenting my criticism, I am not ordering you around with the imperative form at all? Rather, I'm couching things in hypotheticals, subjunctives, and indirection. This allows an individual to more easily accept that the criticism is not intended to injure or upset them.

Because it is perfectly natural for a person to respond to hostile criticism with hostile responses, one should not be surprised that when one is not bothered to concern yourself with the pleasantries of civility, that others will not concern themselves with the same.

When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly.

My hypothetical -- as presented -- served the purpose it was designed for... showing that it is possible for one can be disrupted by legal process, even if someone hasn't done anything wrong.

In fact, I did not even strictly intend my hypothetical to be a proper analogy.

I was simply intending to produce a hypothetical which demonstrated a counter-example to the assertion that one has a right to not be bothered, unless one does something illegal.

If the reader has to connect a few dots or two, perhaps the author felt that the dots should be easily connectible.

But upon reviewing your previous posts together... I would like to revisit some of your statements.

Followed by:

Interesting.

Now, let's look at this:

preceded by:

Huh.

Next up:

preceded by:

Again... interesting. Not to mention that this criticism fails to even address a proper criticism of the counter-example. In fact, it provides for a much wider possible example of bothering people legally even though they have done nothing illegal.

Not the same act. The context matters.

By your actions and statements, usually.