Looking back it seems you're quite correct and I misread Zolgar's statement. Thanks for catching that. My apologies to Zolgar for doing so, and please disregard the part of my post that followed from my misreading.

Exactly.
And phoenix, I've tried to express how I see it. But obviously I don't have the massive intellectual power that comes from being some kind of big-shot doctor/chemist/whatever the hell you are.
I'm a blue-collar worker monkey with an unfortunately limited education. That's all I am. And no, I have no aspirations of being an artist or writer or.. anything else, with the exception of making some extra money with my custom goggles and nerf mods, but those don't fall in tot he same category as the copyright crap we're discussing.
So yes, this discussion was over when I said "that's pretty much the end of it."

A shame really.
Like DarkPhoenix said earlier, the good thing about a discussion is that it sometimes changes your opinion.
That's how I see it as well and even hope for.
I've seen DarkPhoenix trying very hard to substantiate every part of his opinion which you attacked (this is completely valid btw in a discussion). And then he attacked your points also substantiated with facts and even tales of his own life experience.
If you add it all up, don't you tend (however slightly) to agree with his/her views?
Or to put it in another way, what is missing in DarPhoenix's debate?
Or to put it even more differently why do you believe that your opinion has more validity than DarkPhoenix's?. And if not, why do you still believe it?
I'm just interested to know the answers to this.

I agree the laws could use an overhaul. I think Phoenix's idea is overkill. I have expressed WHY I think his idea is overkill, and all I got for it was told that I had a childish mentality.
Phoenix and I's opinions are equally valid. Because they are JUST OPINIONS. There is no solid fact to prove how one of them is better than the other (regardless of what Phoenix says). We can't know how these changes would effect things, or just how adverse an effect the current copyright laws have really had, because we have nothing to compare it to.
The way things are is all we know. This would be like saying the world would be a better place if Adolf Hitler had never been born*, we can't know what would have happened in his stead so it would be entirely speculation.
*Just used as an extreme example.

The retarded level just went up a notch in this bitch:
4chan declares war on ifpi and DdoSs it.
I just don't know how I should feel about this.

you know, this just feels so much more appropriate now.
"Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"
I don't want to keep spamming the same thing, but it was the first thing that came to mind when 4chan was mentioned.
Also, I wanted to say, another reason for "protecting intellectual property" is to keep the ip or brand "pure."
Seein' as you can sell soda, but god forbid you name your soda Coke, even though the opposing company's name is "Coca Cola."

Well, what ever the verdict, Swedish pirate party, the Piratpartiet, is the winner. It's being flooded with new member registrations gaining some 18500 new members more than doubling its membership from mere 15000 to over 33500 (and rising)in mere 4 days making it the 4th largest political party in Sweden (in number of registered members).

it's a completely logical progression.
Extremism begets extremism.
Simple as that

Keeping the IP "pure" in the context of games, usually means keeping it in the hands of the original developer, something which is sadly a rare occurrence these days, with the way the industry currently works, in which the publisher, not the developer, is holding the IP rights.

I know i'm taking the risk of being called a pirate (again), but,
The main reason for protecting IP's, as the law stands, is money.
That's why corporations who hold hundreds of IP's buy, bully or bribe. To keep current laws as they are, or in some cases, to achieve aditional layers of proteccion for the IP's that keep making money for them.
No one disputes that IP needs to be protected. People who have good ideas should be rewarded for thaving them.
What people mostly question is:
1 - For how long should the person who had the idea or who holds the rights be allowed to keep the IP,
2 - How and why the sell/buy/transfer of IP occurs, and why are a few entities in control of so many IP's and holding so much power over what we as a society may or may not use in our creative and/or artistic thinking.
3 - The law was created in the spirit of protecting the person who has the idea. In fact it's being used to protect whoever has enough money to buy that idea. The law was never meant to protect the greedy entity with the infrastructure in place to capitalise on the idea. That entity never comes up with any creative ideas other than more ways of exploiting the IP to make more money out of it, some times at the risk of wasting/exausting the IP's artistic/creative value/potencial in the process, but that's what it's doing.
4 - The law was created in the spirit of promoting artistic and creative thought, but in fact in many cases it's doing the opposite because 1,2,3 are not working as they should.
I think these are some of the main issues.
Questioning these issues doesn't translate into being a pirate or pro-piracy.
None of this appies exclusively to the TPB trial.
None of this applies exclusively to the internet.
None of this applies exclusively to digital content

Bravo, sir. Extremely well put.

Shiver me timbers arrrrrr.
The law in most countries at first was created to give the person with the idea the chance to exploit that idea commercially for a short period of time (in the US it was 14 years with a chance for renewal).
When that period was over, others could take that idea and improve it and exploit that commercially.
This is a simple construct to improve innovativeness as there is a constant regurgitation of ideas.
Nowadays a copyright doesn't need to be exploited commercially immediately and is protected for an absurd amount of time, people tend to think that copyright is something someone owns for all eternity and using their ideas is theft, but it is nothing more than a right to be the only one to temporary exploit an idea on a commercial basis.

Wishbone, Thank you.
Zhirek, i seem to have misplaced my bandana :)
I take it that you do agree that with the current absurd periods of time, for most pratical purposes, it's almost as being for all eternity, and that's one of the issues people do question about copyright.

I don't feel like going through the whole thing:
Piracy IS a form of stealing. Unfortunately, copyright infringement laws are the only ones we presently have that can be used in any way shape or form to protect against piracy.
(Though piracy COULD also be considered theft of service.)
Also, while it is not precisely the way the law works, IMHO copyright infringement is theft.
And, for DP's counters, as you so break them down. These are entirely base on opinion. He can have his opinion on it, and a fact that he can interpret to substantiate his opinion, however that is merely his interpretation of the law.
And also, while you can say that control over intellectual property equate to the control of what people can do with ideas which equates to controlling what people can do with their lives, you can use that same logic on ANY law.
A laws against stealing are to control what people do with their lives, and makes their life more difficult.
Same with laws against murder, and .. anything else.
You can say "Oh those are different, those things are actually bad!" While they ARE different (especially murder, theft is debatable on how different it is as this thread has proven), they are only BAD because society says they are bad.
If the law/society said "Take what you want if you have the skill/muscle/firepower to do so." theft wouldn't be a "bad" thing. It would just be a normal every day thing.
So the facts DP uses to validate his opinions, do not invalidate my opinions because on point 1:
It's the only law we have to go on, because our laws are archaic, dating back from loooong before the internet was even imagined.
And point 2:
Interpretation of the law in order to support his view point. That law does NOTHING against my view point.
Once again I say, no solid facts that support his or disprove mine.
I'm not concerned enough with this argument to spend time researching because.. I don't care about changing other people minds.
I wouldn't have gone any further if he hadn't decided to insult me for my view point, at which point I decided to rail on him a bit more instead of just calling him an asshole (which was my first instinct.)