|
|
Posted by Matt on 01/02/06 10:12
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43b820be.177797171@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:05:59 GMT, "Matt" <nospam@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> Your argument is compelling. However, you are confusing *stealing* with
>>> *frugality*.
>
>>> I would never dream of buying a $ 20 DVD to see a crummy old movie. By
>>> copying an existing copy, I am not stealing: I am not depriving anyone
>>> of
>>> anything, which would be the essence of stealing. By copying a CD,
>>> instead
>>> of buying one which I would never do, I merely enhance my own standard
>>> of
>>> living without depriving any poor starving artist of anything. Just
>>> because something is against a stupid law, it is not immoral, as
>>> stealing
>>> would be.
>
>>> No, I don't want the nice bookshelf with brand new DVDs, as suggested by
>>> you. I just want the ethereal content of old DVDs.
>
>>> Ha!
>
>>Frugality. Another word for thief in this instance.
>>You are stealing, pure and simple.
>
> Will you ninnies give it a rest.
>
> There are far more important things happening in the world than an
> individual making a copy of something solely for personal use.
>
For obvious reasons I hope you get burgled and your car stolen.
Then you can bleat on as much as you please about there being more important
things happening in the world.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|