I wouldn't call that solid - reactions to piracy can prove they're scared, but in of itself doesn't show hard facts about damages - and titles not being released is also dubious because other factors can and often do play a role [and you can't just ignore them].

That would be the 747-100s though, right? They had 747-SPs to about 1993 or so I thought.

Hmmm.... and what relevance does that hold to anything?

Honestly, I'd be tempted to encourage everybody to write to the FTC over this. There is no way slandering somebody and making them pay to be unslandered is legal.

A lot of presumption there, anon, got any proof about the first part? I'm guessing on the 2nd part, but if they are interfering with legal traffic in an illegal manner no TOS Or any shit like that can prevent them from being sued over it.

That's... kinda not the point. I think what is being asked is, if you aren't sharing the entire work how can somebody reasonably be nailed for sharing the entire work as opposed to part of the work, and how can what they want be considered anywhere near proportional?

1 a week out of ... how many torrenters? Millions of millions I'd figure.

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.