Hi Zolgar,
I'm still confused. And it would mean a lot to me if you would answer my questions.
Suppose I shared your opinions and I lived in your country.
After reading (parts of) the Dowling vs the US Supreme Courts decision. You know people who are better educated and suited, which I can trust to interpret the law for me. Especially for supreme court decisions. And they say clearly copyright infringement is not stealing then at least I would be tempted to rethink my opinion.
If I held the belief that copyright was instituted to protect the person who came up with the idea and I read the constitution of my country and I read clearly that copyright should always be used to promote progress. Then I would at least be tempted to rethink my opinion.
Where it all comes down to is, that you believe something because you believe it and that it is a rigid belief. This sounds a tad like religion.
I end with asking again, what needs to be done for you to rethink your opinions?
Or could you give me one example of an opinion you had but changed it due to something.
What was that something.

Once again i state:
I disagree on the legal element of 'copyright infringement/theft' thing. And Once again I say that copyright infringement is the only law we have to cover piracy. I thought I made that perfectly clear.
Once again I will also state that the use of the copyright law to support DP's position was based off of interpretation of it. It does not disprove my position so I have no reason to argue it.
I have strong opinions. And unless I am irrefutably proven wrong, I keep those opinions. He simply showed where his opinions came came from. He showed nothing that told me mine were wrong.
He showed other people opinions that said mine were wrong. But guess what, those are other people's opinions.
An opinion will never change my opinion.

Okay, I now know where you stand.
You don't think that definitions of acts like stealing are constricted to the law and the lawmakers.
I do, so there is where I went wrong.
That's why I still don't know what TPB did wrong according to the judge, because in my opinion wrong in this realm means not complying to the law.
Would you like to explain to me what, in your opinion is stealing using only objective words (no wrong, bad, good or other).
I will then try to see if the supreme court orders decision can prove you wrong. If your definition is entirely different then theirs, then persuading you is of course not possible using that court decision.

Why are you so hell-bent on "persuading" him? He's already said that he disagrees with that definition. It's a subjective thing, you can't analyze it like that. The guy has a different opinion, which I disagree with, by the way, but let him have his opinion. It says nowhere in the universal law of everything that everyone has to agree with you, or with me, for that matter.

Because I am a manipulative psychopath. And I like a challenge.
No seriously, I just want to know if it is possible to alter someone's rigid beliefs and if so how. To be honest I am much more interested in how to persuade than to actually persuade.
If it comes down to circular reasoning (I believe this, because I believe this) than I know that no one can change that and leave it at that.
The point is, I also read parts of the supreme courts decision and the reasoning in that is very difficult not to agree with.
Unless your own definition of stealing is entirely different from the ones used and you don't think that the supreme court is a valid system to interpret the current laws for you. I've already established that latter fact, so now I think the reason should probably lie in someone's own definition of things.

To take that which is not "yours", with out obtaining the proper permission to take said item from those who have the power to issue it.
This includes knowingly taking items from an individual you know did not obtain the proper permission to take and/or distribute them.
Example
1.1: Bob breaks in to your house. Takes your DVD player and big-screen television.
1.2: Jake is unaware the origins of the DVD player and purchases it from Bob.
1.3: Jimmy knows Bob stole the big-screen TV (he heard him bragging about it), and purchases it from him anyways.
2.1: Captain Jack buys Dawn of War 2, and then rips it cracks the DRM and torrents it.
2.2: Will Turner finds Dawn of War 2 on *torrent site* and decides to download it.
1.1: Obviously theft.
1.2: Not theft.
1.3: Legally speaking, not 'theft' per se, but an illegal action none the less. IIRC, knowingly purchasing a stolen item makes you an accessory to the crime.
2.1: Standard piracy. Theft? Not really, as the first copy was legally obtained. However, when he cracked the DRM and released it to the internet, he was in violation of the EULA which dictates that he is not allowed to distribute copies of the game.
So in essence (perhaps not how it is legally viewed) every copy of the game he distributes is "taken" from *company that owns DoW2*, as the only copy he is authorized to have is the one he purchased.
2.2: Anyone with half a brain knows that the copies of games distributed on a torrent site are not authorized copies from the publisher. Therefor those who download them are knowingly obtaining copies that were illegitimately obtained.

Thanks Zolgar, for again taking your time to explain the world in your eyes.
I know now that on this subject you can't be persuaded, because in previous posts you clearly stated that you think that an idea is something you own. Even if you shared that idea with someone else.
I believe you can only own an idea when you never share it, but his doesn't stop others from getting the same idea by themselves and choose to share it.
This is the basis for me and the supreme court from declaring that piracy is not equal to theft.
For a discussion you must have at least one point both parties can agree upon. Since this is missing between us, a discussion (on this specific point) is not possible.
I would like it very much if you viewed Larry Lessig's presentation (if you haven't already).
Cheers.

I'll chip in on this matter and say that it is most certainly possible to alter peoples' opinions, but that it won't happen with any kind of "hard sell" approach. The easiest way to alter opinions is if those opinions are based upon erroneous information. In such a case simply present the fact that the information is erroneous, as well as the correct version of the information (preferably with a reliable source to back it up). Don't try to show how this means their opinion is incorrect, or lay out what opinion should follow from the new information (this only brings ego into the matter, which is incredibly counterproductive). Instead, simply leave the formation of a new opinion as an implicit exercise for the other person, so that the new opinion formed is something that they can take ownership of, rather than something that someone else is trying to force on them.
In cases where the difference of opinion is not based on erroneous information (i.e. the majority of cases), the most you can do is present your own opinion on the matter as clearly as possible then just leave it for the other person to mull over. Don't go into the discussion looking to demonstrate why the other person's opinion is wrong (this again just brings ego into the matter), but rather look to demonstrate why your own opinion makes sense, bringing it back to more basic principles and reasoning from there. Over the next weeks/months/years the views you expressed may slowly seep into the other person's views, changing them... or perhaps not. However, that's the most that can be done. In short, if you're looking to change peoples' opinions, the most that can be done is to not try to directly change their opinions, but rather to simply speak honestly, calmly, and rationally about a position you are passionate about. From there it's all in the hands of the other person in what they choose to do with what you presented.

Hey you crazy chemist you,
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
I was directly attacking the validity of Zolgar's opinions (which is completely normal in a debate).
This does cause the other to go in defense mode, which makes them even more rigid.
I did find out why it wasn't possible to change his opinions.
Back on topic.
Where to find the TPB's court decision.
I'm interested to see on what ground the court decided they were not conforming to Swedish law. So far I've only seen interpretations of other judicial experts. And they say they were found guilty of facilitating in facilitating of copyright infringement or something weird like that.

My Swedish searching skills aren't up to par. If I try to look for them I only find English articles.
Although I now know that using google translate probably doesn't help a lot.
It all does come down to being guilty of facilitating others in not conforming to the law.
Comparing digital material to solid materials shouldn't be considered good comparisons.
But if I were to come up with one, you could easily say that the hardware store selling a crowbar is facilitating others in not conforming the law, when that crowbar is used for breaking an entering.

The newest developments now is that some law experts believe the case might get tried again because the judge was not legally competent to pass a fair verdict.
Loosely translated from a norwegian news article:
"The judge who gave the Pirate Bay-founders a year in prison and an enormous fine may be legally incompetent, says law experts. Judge Tomas Nordström is himself a member of the organization "Svenska fõreningen for upphovsrätt" (Swedish organization for copyright), where the prosecutors Henrik Pontén avd Monique Wadsted are also members. Nordström is also a board member in the organization. In addition, Nordström is claimed to once have worked in a different organization, .SE, together with Monique Wadsted.
The experts are now warning of what they perceive as a tight connection between the judge and the prosecutors. Several law experts feel that there is a clear conflict of interest in the case.
"I would not have accepted the case myself" says former Justisombudsmann (high-ranking governmental justice official) Rune Lavin.
Swedish Law dictates that even a suspicion of a judge being legally incompetent is enough to recommend the judge stay away from the case. Judge Nordström says he did not consider himself ineligible in this case.
A consequence of this may be that the trial is brought up again, if one can argue that the conflicts of interest have been too great."
The main grounds of the original verdict:
"The core of the case has been whether the defendants are guilty of accessory to violation of the copyright laws by administering and running the website. The prosecutors claimed the website was tailor-made for the distribution of illegally copied material, while the defense has upheld that one can get the same result from many other sites, including Google, as well as there being vast amounts of legal material that is also searcable via Pirate Bay."
In other words:
The judge in the case, Tomas Nordström, is legally incompetent, seeing as he is mingling with the prosecution lawyers and other representatives of their side in his spare time, and is a member of several organizations lobbying for stricter copyright laws.

Link?
I have to admit that I expected more of the Swedish justice system. With his background, this judge is clearly not impartial in the case at hand, which should have been taken into account from the very beginning.

Here's a few articles in Norwegian:
http://itavisen.no/811444/pirate-bay-dommeren-er-inhabil
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/04/23/kultur/the_pirate_bay/tekno/5879149/
http://www.vg.no/teknologi/artikkel.php?artid=572158

The news about Judge being accused of being biased is all over the news sites here in Finland as well.
News in english:
TorrentFreak
The Register
Techdigest
What a mess this is turning out to be.