Piracy

neat.

I see.

OK
I want to feel good about piracy user, trust me, but the arguments suck

Faulty logic.
If you write a book and sell it, it's not yours anymore. If someone bought it, it's his property now to do with as he pleases. And it's utterly unreasonable to expect someone not to share a book with others.

At last I see.

you own the rights to the intellectual property, just like if you came up with an invention or made a movie or music album

which means others can't reproduce it, or alter it for their gain, or copy it and put their name on it as the creator, etc…you can give it away, sure, but buying intellectual property doesn't mean you own the rights to it

When you pirate a product, unless you were never going to pay for it and never going to distribute the pirated software, then the company doesn't lose profit.

However, piracy is sinful because you go against the legal contract made between the company and you; the consumer. Anti-piracy laws are upheld by the government, and if you deal with Caesar's money, then honour God and do what is good by following the government laws which are not sinful; such as taxation and anti-piracy.

Sinful laws such as abortion are not to be followed since God comes first in all matters.

Attached: Anomymous man.jpg (720x556, 130.81K)

What about things that cannot be (or takes LOTS of effort to) found/purchased legally any more. Like good old songs that did not made it to digital stores.

Even Steven Anderson doesn't care.

At a public library they can buy one copy of a book and hundreds of people can read it over the years without purchasing a copy themselves.
Are public libraries stealing?

To Sell is to Transfer Full Ownership

These anti-piracy laws seems to oppose private ownership / private property.

If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it, lend it, etc., because I own it.

To charge the owner extra to use something he owns or to charge for how he uses it is a form of usury, which the Church has always condemned (cf. Pope Benedict XIV's Vix Pervenit), because usury "is to sell what does not exist" (St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 78 a. 1 c.).

Another question is: Is "intellectual property" even property? N. Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property (free audiobook & ebook) is an excellent treatment of this and related moral questions.

A Doubtful Law does not Bind

The Internet's Own Boy—the free documentary on Aaron Swartz,* who was famously (some contend unjustly) prosecuted for automating the downloads of thousands and thousands of articles from JSTOR, using MIT's subscription—begins with this quote that is reminiscent of the Catholic moral principle "lex dubia non obligat" ("an unclear law does not bind")

This is literally what libraries do.

There is no such thing as intellectual property. If two people come up with the same idea who does it belong to?

A legal contract that is trying to regulate the immaterial. And if all goods are material, once you buy it you are free to share it as you please. And if some goods are immaterial we can't really regulate them.

What would you say if someone is forced to use certain software, which is both commercial and proprietary. To make a specific example, let's say you are studying at a university and your professor demands you turn in your files in Microsoft Office or Adobe CS formats. Would pirating such software be justified, because you don't really have the choice of using it? I understand the argument "if you don't want to give them money, don't consume their products", but this is a case where a company forces you use their products.

I'm asking in general, not for myself. I'm fortunate in that all my university computing needs can be met with a toaster running Free Software, but most students are not in such a position.

This, but also with books. What if you are forced to have a certain book. What if you have your grandpa's but they force you to have the last edition?

The book was already paid for and they are are demanding your money for something you already possess.

Is banking a sin?

Piracy hurts the pockets of (((them))) the enemies of the Lord our God.

You can't steal something that is not in their possession.

oh you're an anarch/commie? what is wrong with you, all your arguments assume a lawless chaotic world that has no basis in reality, where nothing matters and good/evil don't exist. you might as well say rape and murder don't matter because people are just atoms flowing through space.
pathetic

Libraries pay fees to publishers.

The two people, if they can prove its the same idea, and they came up with it at the same instant of time, which would be extremely rare and bizarre. So they would profit share over it, or come to some agreement over how the product can be sold.

You don't buy the rights to it, goofball.
If I buy a Harry Potter book I can't graphically remove the Author's Name and Publishing code and sell it as my own original work in bookstores.

Holy shit who let these 14year old 90IQ brainlets on Zig Forums ??

Downloading a digital copy of code = Not stealing

Downloading said copy of code and selling it as your own = Stealing

Ignore the statists in here that say you have to respect the law of the land because it’s an unjust law in the first place.

No, arguments against intellectual property are anarcho capitalist, not communist.

...

...

Nice mental gymnastics.

There is a disturbing subtext to pro-piracy arguments.

While copyrighting general things like speech itself, or specific foods or whatnot is of course ridiculous. copyrighting specific individual executions of an idea is absolutely right and necessary. This is because everything that can be sold, including the physical, starts out as an abstract idea: an intellectual property.

The jaws of life stated out as an idea in someone's head, who then drew a rough schematic of it on paper, before it was mass produced into the physical life saving device it is today. No one can copyright the concept of pottery, but if a man creates a uniquely designed pot, with his own unique visual designs on it and sells it as his own unique creation, anyone making a pot exactly like his and calling it his own and trying to make a profit from it is obviously stealing his idea. No one can copyright paintings, but an actual physical painting that a man creates is his own unique execution of that idea. If you were to perfectly copy a William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting on a canvas, with the same tools he used (oil paint, mediums, etc.) and were to call it your own original creation, you would rightly be called a thief/plagiarizer of his unique execution of the painting concept. In the same way, while you can start your own hamburger chain, you can't make you logo a yellow set of arches over "Mcdonald's" text, and start selling burgers and fries with the exact same recipes and marketing strategies and say "this is my original intellectual property." Once again, you are stealing that specific execution of the idea.

Then we come to books, music, video games, and software in general. If a book is sold in the form of a collection of sheets of highly processed tree pulp, or if music, video games and software are sold on some unique physical proprietary physical form (such as vinyl records for music), pro-pirates will say that it is theft to take such things. However, as soon as these formats become digital or in compact digital disc form, in their eyes, it's no longer theft. What happened? What changed?

This is where the disturbing subtext of pro-piracy comes in. What do formats such as digital and digitally based discs have in common? Copying and distributing them requires a pathetically low level of effort. In other words, when a pro-pirate says "copying is not theft", what they're REALLY saying, sub-textually is this: "If it's EASY to copy, it's not theft."

Let's demonstrate this logic in action:

Sandy wrote a book. Getting your book published by a major publisher is very difficult, and the modern world, economically, is becoming more and more digitally based. So she decides to try her luck with selling/distributing her book digitally.

Pro-pirate copies her book and distributes it via torrent, etc.

Sandy: Stop doing that! I'm trying to make living off my work!

Pro-pirate: Your work is easy to copy and distribute, so it's not stealing.

Sandy: But I worked my butt of on it! It's my unique execution of the written word! If it were a physical book, you wouldn't be doing this!

Pro-pirate: So find a publisher who will make physical copies of your book.

Sandy: It's not that easy or simple!

Pro-pirate: Well, tough break toots. As long as your book is digital, it's easy to copy, and thus, not theft.

I remember one time when I was very young (and stupid) I helped out "friends" (who I've since broken off with) with a shoplift. In the aftermath, I felt crushing guilt and sickness to my stomach, and never wanted to do it again. When I used to be a pirate/so-called "ethical pirate"(I'll pay for it when I get the money!"), I would feel no such feelings. I just clicked with a mouse, and boom, it was there. I didn't feel any guilt or a drive to rid myself of such things until I became a Christian.

Thus, in addition to ease of copying, a lack of guilt/adrenaline rush that comes from physical stealing is a major part of the pro-pirate's rationalization. And you can see this in action as things become easier and easier to copy.

Vinyl records are now easier to copy than before. The phenomenon of illegal emulation and ROMS is the product of some individuals figuring out how to digitally copy game cartridges and distribute them online, making them easy to acquire. As 3-D printing technology advances, it's going to become a pirates wet dream.

In the far flung future, if someone came up with some sort of a ray gun that you could go to a car lot with, zap a car, and instantaneously perfectly duplicate the car and a set of keys right on the spot, the pro-pirate would not consider this theft, even though if such a practice became wide-spread, Car dealerships would go out of business very quickly.

God commanded us not to steal. Jesus also told a parable of all of us being endowed with talents by him ( Matthew 25:14-30). If someone distributes their talents in a format that is easy to copy, for the sake of said person making a living that person's attempt to make a living should be respected, period. Even if their idea/intellectual property is painfully easy to copy and distribute, and even if you feel absolutely entitled to said idea/intellectual property because of whatever flimsy rationalization you come up with.

Almost forgot - there is also the phenomenon of people scanning in physical books, page by page, and then distributing them in a digitized format. Once again, as long as even a physical object becomes easy to copy/distribute/gain, it no longer becomes "theft" in the eyes of a pro-pirate.

As you can see: the "If it's easy to copy, it's not theft" logic of a pirate, becomes a literal slippery slope very quickly and easily.

Imagine if the apostles had copyrighted their works and prohibited people from copying and distributing them, all in the name of greed. In all likelihood Christianity would have stayed a little sect now long-forgotten by history.

Freely you have received; freely give.

Big difference.

Think.

There's no such thing as a "digital book". Here's the definition of a book:
1. a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

How about selling "real" books and not pretend ones?

Literally addressed this flimsy argument near the end of this post:

You're also proving my point about the "If it's easy to copy, it's not theft" argument of pro-pirates.

do a hail mary for each copy and youre in it to win it

There's also the fact that, as I pointed out here: even the physicality of books does not prevent piracy.

I read you're whole post. A digital series of 1's and 0's is still not a book. You can call it a "work", but it's not a book, anymore than it is a scroll.

"Book", "work" "scroll", so what? If someone is trying to make a living and you steal by not paying for it, it's theft. At this point I can't tell if you're trolling in bad faith, or if your mental gymnastics are this outrageously elaborate.

No, if you painstakingly transcribe the text from one book on to your own copy, that would also not be theft. Theft is taking something from another person, so that they do not have it any more and you do. This is copying, which is different.

Why do I even bother?

a work of fiction or nonfiction in an electronic format:
a number of sheets of blank or ruled paper bound together for writing, recording business transactions, etc.
Huh???

...

Speaking of which, I wonder….

questioncopyright.org/no_more_store

GWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Selling things and maintaining a business requires…. effort? Who would've thunk?

And honestly, if the posts I wrote aren't enough to shake you out of your rationalization via semantic games, I don't know what will.

wew lad
Also, when you digitalize a book, that is no longer a book, it's a set of information that is stored on your hard-drive. YOUR hard-drive. Meaning that everything on it is yours.

Copyright? Good luck with that. Ideas are no-one's property.

This is just getting monotonous and pathetic now:

Are you seriously trying to equate someone giving you their used book, with pirating a digital book when you should pay for it?

Semantic games; again.

Once again, addressed this flimsy argument here:

Notice how the pro-piracy arguments have started to progress from "Copying isn't theft/Easy copying isn't theft" to "Once something becomes digital, it's no longer what it was, so it's okay to steal." As I basically said before, if pirates could figure out a way to digitize a car, and then make it a physical copy again, they would rationalize it as being not theft.

The fact that the mental gymnastics are getting more and more elaborate and ludicrous is telling.

The real mental gymnasts are those that try to rationalize copying as theft. Spoiler alert: copying is how books were distributed for thousands of years. Furthermore, christian monasteries were by far the biggest culprits. And yet, the idea that they were stealing was never a point of contention. Why? Because the idea of intellectual property is new and absolutely absurd. "But poor Sally! She can't make money selling adult romance novels on kindle???" Well no, it's not because someone puts work into something that they are morally deserving of compensation. If someone tries to make money off of an absurd idea, like selling intellectual "property", they are playing a fool's game and don't deserve money or respect for what they do, and least of all the money they get from the suckers who buy into their scam.

I feel like we just had this thread. Did OP pirate it?

Horrible example. If you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy.

The fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce. Ideas are not naturally scarce, but by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before.

And here we go:

"IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE PHYSICAL IN ORDER TO BE DESERVING OF COMPENSATION! (just ignore the fact that if we can digitize the physical copy, we'll steal that too: )

This argument also implies:

You are literally just regurgitating the "Copying is not theft argument" word for word, without considering the changes in how products are distributed in the modern marketplace!

The pro-piracy arguments are literally ad nauseam at this point.

Attached: PiracyMentalGymnastics.jpg (535x471, 133.71K)

True.
True.
When did I say that books are new? Are you being daft on purpose.

Btw, repeating arguments and calling them mental gymnastics doesn't make them so. You should try articulating counter-arguments instead of screaming about "muh mental gymnastics". However, it's obvious from the way you're reacting that you've been cornered and have nothing to say.

But, I'm fine with #3 too.

Patent is as absurd as copyright and and piracy law. I'm only glad the windshield wiper guy got paid because it was finally a day when the law benefiting an average Joe, instead of only benefiting the uber-elite.

The best law, however, would eliminate patent and copyright law. Do you know how many millions, probably billions, are wasted each year on patent lawyers? This is a net loss to society, smart people could be inventing stuff or making stuff and instead they make their money by arguing who owns what idea. Literally ten of thousands, if not more, people make over 100K a year to create nothing of value - just argue about ownership. You think that's a good system?

Not to mention all the inventors it keeps out of the market. If average Joe invents something original, he'll still be sued into oblivion by 20 patent troll attorneys and rarely makes any money off it.

There's like 100 patents alone on just carbon nanofibers that are gumming up the works so no one can work on nanotechnology without getting sued.

So, yeah, all the pro-piracy arguments are really solid when you look at the social ramifications of enforcing them.

OK!

That first part of your pic is some pretty ridiculous gymnastics. Legally, piracy is not theft. An element of theft requires the taking, again TAKING of another's property. The property must be tangible- hypothetical things like lost profits are damages, not a taking, and do not support a theory of theft. LEGALLY PIRACY IS NOT THEFT, THAT'S WHY IT FALLS UNDER PIRACY LAW AND HAS A SPECIAL LAW WRITTEN FOR IT.

Now, copyright and patent law is also horribly damaging to society, see

So, while I can see the argument that we should all respect the law as written, we should all also be desperately lobbying to eliminate copyright and patent law.

That falls under patent, not copyright, but it still accurate regarding how things would go down.

Not true. The sales are a direct consequence of supply and demand, and the demand function is altered when the product is consumed. Therefore if consumption occurs without purchase, the company experiences a comparative loss.

Furthermore, it is invalid to control for scope with statements like, "if pirate never intended to purchase" because a) consumers often change their minds over time and b) social affect e.g. his friends see him playing the game or play with him, thereby altering their consumer demand functions directly and associatively.

My point is that at one time they were new, in the same manner of making money from oral recitation/performances was once new. People did pay to get in to see Shakespeare's plays.

Lord have mercy, the projection.

Once again, the early part of your post is just regurgitating the "Copying is not theft!" argument, yet again. This time with a "They're saying piracy instead of theft so it's completely different!" twist. Piracy is literally a synonym for theft. In this case, for a specific form of theft.

I actually somewhat agree with you and that there are flaws to the law, but that does not justify breaking it wholesale. Like you somewhat said, I do think there should be lobbying to change the flawed aspects of the law, but not to outright do away with it.

piracy is illegal, and the law is just. You have to abstain from it on account of romans 13.

This is where you get it very wrong. You believe that because they have created this artificial monopoly called IP it somehow equates to theft. Even the term piracy makes it look as a theft even though it is legally quite different from theft. They have already given you a million reasons with it is NOT LITERALLY theft.

Would they have paid to have the right to write down the play? No, of course not. Therein lies the whole point of this argument. People paid to see the play i.e. see something entertaining.

No, they have not given me a million reasons; they have literally regurgitated the same basic premise again and again and again, and again and again, with mental gymnastics to rationalize said premise like "once it becomes digital, it's no longer what it was so it's okay to steal." or like this:

first says:

Then says this:

He literally goes from "Making money off plays is absurd." to "Making money off plays is fine, but I should be able to copy the play and distribute it freely!"

Attached: its-all-so-tiresome-8881488.png (500x478, 91.76K)

You're being intellectually dishonest and you know it. When people see the play, they pay not for the "play" itself, but to see it reenacted by actors on a stage. In other words, they pay for a service, a show. Not an abstract thing, but a tangible thing. I don't know why you're choosing these bad arguments on purpose.

You can say you think it's wrong, but it ABSOLUTELY, CERTAINLY, POSITIVELY, 100% IS NOT THEFT. Why is it so hard for you to rap your brain around the definition of theft and why piracy doesn't fit it? Theft involves the taking of something that belongs to someone else, thus depriving them of that object, piracy does not do this. To say it is theft is COMPLETELY WRONG.

The concept of IP or copyright might be laudable in theory but the international laws on this are totally winnie the poohed up (being that they're dictated by the US), just look at how long everyone's favourite degenerate mouse has been kept out of the pubic domain, or how this same mouse has monetized the IP around European folktales for the last hundred years and counting. Being hysterical about the breakdown of inventiveness and creativity, and therefore of civil society, because some people don't want to kowtow to the library of talmudic reasoning that is US IP law when they download a pedowood flick or shitty piece of gaming software is ridiculous.

1) Christians must not steal
2) Christians must not break the law unless obeying said law would cause them to sin
3) In my country, receiving a pirated copy is not illegal (though hosting it might be? Not sure)
4) Therefore balancing the interests of my finances and desire/duty to deprive pozzed content creators of shekels vs the just compensation deserving of someone who makes a valuable piece of art/entertainment is a prudential judgment to be made to the best of my ability
5) I mostly pirate but will pay if I like it/ they have a track record of not promoting sin or degeneracy/ I have no other choice.

My conscience is as clear as crystal tbh fam, anyone but 830cb0 try to change my mind

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (750x748, 945.44K)

A live play performance (unless you own a recording on DVD) is a physical object that you can own and contain? Someone washing your car is a physical object that you can own and contain? No. Yet it has tangible affects. A digital book can have tangible effects in terms of emotions stirred or new ideas implanted, same thing with a live play performance, in spite of being abstract. Live play performances and car washes are abstract, yet okay to pay for, but digital books are not?

Vid related: how I'm feeling at this point. (And yes, I got that clip from the official channel, so it's not piracy.)

It is the exact same thing.
Someone buys a book and decides to share it with whomever he pleases.
If the author feels this is not monetarily satisfying, he should price the book accordingly.

It is literally a physical book becoming digital data on your hard-drive. Semantics don't even enter this concept.

You addressed nothing you just tried to assert the strongly questionable claim that an idea can be property.
It can't be. The same people can come up with the same ideas fully independently of each other, meaning that ideas are not made, they are discovered, meaning that they are not the property of the first discoverer but the property of anyone who can get there with their mind.

So liberalism is not the property of one man the same way communism wasn't the property of another.

Copying literally isn't theft though.
Not to mention that no, I don't have to digitalize a book to be able to share it with whomever I please, given how the book is my property to do with as I please, once I paid the price for it.
Your retarded idea that I stole your "future profits" is easily dismantled by the fact that the future doesn't exist, meaning that I can't possibly have stolen from you, after all you never had those profits in the first place, and by sharing my property with someone I am not taking anything from the author, I simply give what is mine to give.

Look, literally, copyright infringement does not satisfy the traditional definition of theft. It's that simple. What's your counter-argument?

Same arguments. Already made counter-arguments.

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!:

...

What's your definition of theft. Mine is the common law definition.

I've read the thread. I don't see your argument, just nay-saying. You keep calling infringement theft, but you ignore that they are separate laws with separate definitions.

If what you mean if copyright infringement is -like- theft, in what way do you mean and how does it matter?

If what you mean is that we should think of copyright infringement like theft, why? How is that socially beneficial? Obviously, this perspective has been pushed heavily by the owners of copyright- for financial reasons. But copyright infringement wasn't viewed as theft until the advent of the internet. So, why should we listen to people lobbying in their own interest?

Addendum

Opinions on the moral duty to pirate if the proceeds would help to spread sin or evil? I know in general that Christians should limit their consumption of media which portrays sin positively, but even a "good" piece of media made by some company like EA is going to subsidize their productions of moral garbage. Seems to potentially be reason enough to disobey a spuriously justified law, in certain cases. Again, 830cb0 don't bother.

It isn't theft and is not illegal for me, tough shit NERD

You should lobby in your interest.
This is literally just a battlefield over what reality should be.
Do you want to live in a world where ideas can be put in a prison and ransomed for money and everything has a price-tag on it, or do you want ideas to be free of such talmudic tyranny?

Now the argument has shifted to "Define theft." and an ad hominum. I've already defined the social beneficialness of such laws as people being able to make a living. It's not rocket science.

So why not just make everything free? Why did God make that silly "Thou shalt not steal" commandment anyway?

Which will inevitably be responded with:

Again. The cycle continues. And it's all about people desperately trying to rationalize getting stuff for free/stealing with a clean conscience. It's sickening.

Well the seat that you pay for at a show is real, tangible. The ebook you pay for is imaginary. See the difference?

Now you're just trolling.

It wasn't free. Someone paid for it.
As a result the product became his property to do with as he pleases.

Because stealing is wrong.
Which piracy isn't, because piracy isn't theft.

Any property can only exist in the physical realm. Ideas are literally not property.

?

Not an argument.

In other words, you're affirming my original argument that physical property originates from abstract ideas:

You know exactly what I meant, and you twisted it.

That would require ideas to be property, which they aren't.
There is no such thing as "your idea".

Next time just start reciting all the crimes committed under the disguise of copyright and how art and human culture gets actively destroyed by the same criminals.

Like for example?

Under that logic, since all physical property has it's ultimate origins as an idea, that means even physical "property" is not property, and everything should just be free. That doesn't tend to work out to well in this fallen world. Even primitive societies at least had a bartering/community contribution system of some sort. God said thou shalt not steal, and assigned various peoples talents for a reason.

falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/

That is not logical at all.

In order to turn an idea into a product you have to extend effort, which turns that idea into a material product. A material product that you trade for whatever you wish, thus transferring it's ownership to the buyer, who may do with it as he pleases.

Once you sell a product, it's forever out of your hands however so you should literally be very careful about what price you ask for your product.

The argument you made is that it is theft, which it isn't, and so you're the one doing the shifting. And it's socially beneficial, except for all the ways in which it's the opposite of socially beneficial, like when it's abused, of which there are a plurality of examples, so we're left with:

1) It's not theft which is explicitly prohibited
2) It's largely not illegal in many places and so it is not an issue of obedience to the law (and it arguably ought not to be illegal in places it is)
3) It is therefore a prudential judgment on a case by case basis

There really is no other conclusion, to say that it is always sinful in general is completely wrong, and you've for some reason decided to bolster the weak case for IP with the much stronger case for copyright, despite the fact that the social utility of one has precious little to do with the other. I can see the potentially dire consequences of depriving a talented genius of the profit of his inventions because of copycats, in that he may not have the means/will to continue on making revolutionary invention.

Yet the disastrous consequences of relying on patronage for the arts is…? A potential replay of the richest era for the arts in human history? I may not think much of the current cultural elite, they want to be fed garbage, but mass media and corporate product are inherently garbage. With the internet, patronage by the common people for talented artists is more possible than ever, this valuable product being set adrift in the sea of bilge pumped out by corporate IP giants is about as far from social utility as possible.

But see what you've done? You've got me to reply to you again, what do you winnie the pooh work for disney? Ought to teach me to waste my time trying to teach common sense to some winnie the pooh corporation worshipping nerd.

You're genuinely an idiot

Now THAT is evil.

And we're back to the "only theft if it's physical" argument" One does not have to extend effort to create a digital book, game, or movie? Even if they may not be physical? It doesn't take an extension of effort to formulate a scientific theory/hypothesis? (yet the scientist get's payed for such abstract concepts via grants and awards and recognition)

"Copying is not theft" argument again.

Fine, but it should still be followed where it is illegal. (and outright legality with no laws whatsoever is questionable at best, as you yourself will soon say.)

Once again, that is not an excuse to break the law, but a rallying cry to reform it.

Okay, we agree on something. Even you acknowledge a place for such laws.

Reliance on copyright or patronage should be the decision of the artist, not you.

And more ad hominums. I may have attacked the ideas and thinking you believe, but I have never attacked or denigrated you as a person. At worst, I've stated you're engaging in theft if you promote said mentalities, but only because I'm concerned about the promotion of theft on this board and thus the souls of you and those who might buy into this. But honestly, if you getting angry at me possibly helps you change in the long run and not suffer eternal damnation, so be it.

Agreed, that is legitimately pure evil.

Are you really this dense or do you not understand that THEFT has a strict definition in the legal world and you cannot out of nowhere change that definition

On the other hand, the Bible is free and freely available online in digital form. Perhaps God doesn't care for you to read those theological books and fiction and instead wants you to spend time reading His Word. Stop justifying sin user. Repent.

Attached: 39891-HolyBible-Bible-read-ThinkstockPhotos-585291064.1200w.tn.jpg (1200x627, 202.9K)

This is true. Copying is not legally "theft". It is, however, copyright infringement and should, thus, be avoided by proper Christians.

I found myself consuming less "stuff" of this world and being so materialistic, once I fully aligned myself with God's Will and stopped pirating any form of intellectual property. You'd be amazed at how much you'd be disciplining yourself once you start paying for things. Paying for video games, it's a hard sell because you know you spend your hard-earned cash on a waste of time.

Attached: img.jpg (600x460, 50.75K)

Stop playing video games, loser. Or just by the DVD if its a movie. Or stop watching movies too. Read a book, nibba.

Didn't everyone commit copyright infringement by copying the Ten Commandments from Moses? I mean he got in a contract with god for getting them. And if not wouldn't the Ten Commandments be the prove that god intended that free use be the way forward? Which would make copyright the work of the devil.