Anti-piracy law firm gets F-ed in the A

[Kupek]

Really. I mean, really. You all feel the need to do this one more time? There should be a Godwin-like law for the nature of theft: any discussion even tangentially involved with intellectual property will eventually devolve into an argument about whether or not copying is theft.

[Zeus]

Really. I mean, really. You all feel the need to do this one more time? There should be a Godwin-like law for the nature of theft: any discussion even tangentially involved with intellectual property will eventually devolve into an argument about whether or not copying is theft.

Yes, let me explain why:

1) Not everyone was involved with the other discussion(s). If the argument comes up again, they can be involved this time;
2) Even if it's the same parties involved in the discussion every time, people's opinions change over time thus the arguments change. Yes, theft will always be a central argument point in this particular issue but the arguments for/against will change;
3) Some of us here actually reply to posts like this because we enjoy it, not because we're expecting a resolution of some kind. And we don't necessarily whine because it's going down the inevitable path again. That's expected in topics which won't necessarily be resolved and which includes a relatively pervaise main issue; and
4) Aren't long-term discussions/arguments i) the basis on which many theories and beliefs are challenged and changed in many different areas, including science and ii) a relatively important basis of long-term relationships? We're certainly the type of community where we all have more of a long-term relationship with each other as opposed to many other more anonymous forums

So yeah, the "need" is there. I would argue it's even moreso because we know each other so well. This particular topic gets people involved unlike a lot of others which have only one or two people involved (New Kupek aside; he's everywhere all of a sudden :-). So often, we just say "bah, I don't want to hear it....again" and ignore the thread. A topic that gets action here (how many threads end up hitting pg 2 now?) is always a good thing.

[Don]

The copying/theft argument is pretty funny because it assumes that theft is worse than copying for both sides who are attempting to make an argument out of it, even though according to the law copyright infringement is a lot worse than theft in terms of punishment so you really you want to say you're only stealing not copyright infringement but then people feel like a dirty thief if they say that, and it even works the other way around namely if you're for copyright then saying someone is a copyright infringement carries a far bigger negative connotation than calling them a dirty thief, but even people who are for copyright don't think like that.

It's like there are people who always insist piracy involves guys on ship boarding you and stuff, even though piracy in its contemporary usage has a history of something like 150 years (possibly more).

[SineSwiper]

Really. I mean, really. You all feel the need to do this one more time? There should be a Godwin-like law for the nature of theft: any discussion even tangentially involved with intellectual property will eventually devolve into an argument about whether or not copying is theft.

Oh, give us some credit. We're not discussing the morality of theft/piracy. We're discussing the criminality of theft/piracy. It's a new angle.

Besides, when you're talking about Nazis, you're pretty much Godwinned in 5 posts or less.