I don't know how to respond to this - the irony, the lack of logic, the smugness, the derpiness is overwhelming.

So, if I get a CD as a gift, that is theft? I got it for free, legally [as it in o itself was legally obtained] - obviously you don't know what heft is... grab a dictionary, and read some law for fuck's sake/

Maybe it is another group of hypocrites - if you actually knew what the word meant / could demonstrate being able to identify hypocrites.

I call bullshit.

Can we cut the false contradiction crap? It's unoriginal, not at all clever, and really makes you look like an idiot. Slashdot is not a hive mind, not one giant entity of one thought, but instead made up of many people with many varying opinions. IF you can't even get that right, including anyone who makes similar statements to that I've replied to, it will be hard to take said posters seriously.

All he said is that it is copyright infringement at best. Saying crime a [or civil tort a] != crime b is not saying crime a is ok. I'd defer to my book on discrete mathematics to demonstrate the fallacy in this specific statement. As to your second act - illegal yes - but only criminal past a certain point before which it squarely remains a civil issue.

I don't need to write anything down to see how retarded this post is.
THERE IS NO HIVE MIND! \ LOTS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE POSTING THEIR OPINIONS. ' To claim hypocrisy when you're taking different pinions, and making some hoopla about how /. is contradictory, when it is different people in these threads posting different individual opinions, well, there is no word to describe how dumb that is. Get off your high horse, read up on basic logic, basic lingual skills pertaining to debate.

Says the one implying hings not even stated - or implied - by the sig, derailing this discussion course. Oh the irony.

Honestly, they are creating shades of gray *derp* because maybe THERE ARE to them? Ever think of that? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean others are wrong for not subscribing to your smugly placed ideas, you know.

The inheent problem [in fact, IMO, the ONLY problem] with your argument is putting it into the scope of [work X] being copyrighted or not. THE ILLEGALITY IS BASED ON PERMISSIONS OR LACK THEREOF, not IN OF ITSELF whether a work is copyrighted. Copyrigt infringement is based largely on permissions or lack thereof, for example.

The business model may suck royally - making a demo that last's 5 minutes, and forcing you to download tons of GB of data even if you are just trying the game - seriously [though the IDEA of download it all, if you like it, just register and you have the full version is a good one] - but the sim, from what I've heard and seen, is incredible - I would hate for this to fuck all that up.

By allowing these bots to run as flawed as they are now, they're accessories, no way around it.

Well, nobody said they have thus far, and even if they do say it, they do - we all do, IT'S CALLED PRIVACY you fucking moron.

Never mind that people think like that seriously, so it really isn't obvious in any sense of the word.

Um... first point is irrelevant, 2nd point is flat wrong, mr. Anon. Coward.