Quote:
Originally Posted by fastboy21
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Then it isn't victimless.
|
That's correct, but when I said it's a victimless crime I was being more aphoristic than literal. It's victimless in the sense that there is no direct immediate harm being done to the owner of that intellectual property, but one could argue that there is an indirect effect on the overall security of that company's copyright power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastboy21
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You can't have it both ways in copyright law: either there is a victim or there is no crime.
|
Says who? That's like saying it's only illegal if you don't get caught. If you illegally possess and vape weed in your basement and there are literally zero victims, it's still illegal. Copyright law is no different - there is no absolute requirement for someone to be victimized in order for a crime to be committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastboy21
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Wrapping pseudo-legal jargon around it doesn't change the essence of the issue at point.
|
What are you talking about? Pseudo-legal jargon? You've completely lost me here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastboy21
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Again, no clue what you mean when you say both of those things together. You seem to be arguing clearly on a particular side of the issue.
|
"Victimless crime" is pretty self-explanatory - it's a crime in which there are no victims. Crime does not require victimization. You seem to be conflating "crime" with "wrongdoing" - crime is contingent upon a man-made, flawed legal system. In some instances there are crimes you'd have to be a monster not to commit. Copyright laws only exist to protect the interests of companies and their intellectual property, not to prevent wrongdoing or victimization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastboy21
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
In any case, of more interest, why the sudden interest in illuminated the law on a server you've been playing on for years now...
|
You've answered your own question - for illumination and clarity's sake. It's not sudden, I've been clarifying this point about piracy for awhile. I realize now that there's probably some kind of contractual arrangement between Daybreak and P99, but a contract is just a band-aid to prevent the bleed-out of liability that normally exists otherwise. Time erodes that band-aid's adhesiveness and eventually it falls off, so there's still value in understanding the technicalities of the laws themselves even when there's a contract in place.