Monte Carlo

The cop should have known better. He should also have avoided being caught.

Zorapter, you acknowledge that I haven't accused you of anything. Usually your posts make sense, but this one doesn't.

So you do pirate sometimes? Dude, eliciting the admission is so much more fun, 'K?

No, my friend, because I suspect I'm totally on the money.

^ I shoot and I score. You are talking about a tiny percentage of the issue at hand, more semantics more loop-the-loop. I am talking about the websites where you can merrily and freely steal products you should pay for. You think you are stealing from a faceless corporation, but that company has employees it pays salaries that put roofs over heads and food in mouths. If waking up every day and trying my level best not to steal, to pay my taxes and be a half-decent contributing, non-oxygen stealing member of society makes be obnoxious and self-righteous then that's a badge I'll wear with pride. Go steal some more software and bask in your alternative, I'm-so-cool attitude. It doesn't change what is or isn't theft.

Freaking 'A' I'm not European.

It's simple, I'd guess that the vast majority of piracy apologists are by and large people who dabble in downloading pirated products. They are simply trying to rationalise / validate their criminality.

Copyright is NOT property rights. ****, I would've thought the more Libertarian-leaning people on this board would be the most astute ones on this matter. Guess not. Libertarians respect property rights, it's one of the cornerstones of libertarianism. The copyright / property right argument is also false. You are freely creating something that you would otherwise buy and depriving the creator of the legitimate profit of his or her labour. It's theft, however much semantic loop-the-looping you want to undertake.

Please make a forum post after you've been burgled. Then we will all try to persuade you to feel sorry for the thief, after all your property was just lying there, waiting to be taken right?

No I didn't miss it, in fact the way it was managed and negotiated to everybody's satisfaction is a good example of what I'm talking about. I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm not a games developer nor do I own any of my own intellectual property. But if I were or I did, I would be furious that some lazy SoB was stealing it then whining about his freedom being curtailed simply because the way he was stealing it was on the internet. This isn't a very difficult point of view to understand AFAIC.

He just can't draw. His artistic ability is limited. It meant that I couldn't be bothered to find out more. Comics are tough because they rely on story and visuals, which is why so many comics suck.

^ Well at least you've learnt that your understanding was fatally flawed. This forum is private property and we are guests who have agreed to T&Cs when we registered. The end.

^ Yours is an all-or-nothing argument. The issue is simply people stealing a sixty-dollar product online as tangibly as if they'd walked into a shop, concealed the item in their clothing and waltzed off without paying. You've stretched that into a thin end of the wedge type scenario whereby an army of eagle-eyed IP lawyers are going to chase down kids in Somewhere, Ohio, for making their own Lego Star Wars movies by using voice clips from George Lucas movies. That ain't gonna happen.

Sorry, but it isn't it a bit hyperbolic to equate protecting basic property rights with totalitarianism?

If a shop opened up in your local mall with a sign outside saying "Buy your 100% WAREZ HERE!!!" it would be shut down very quickly. Why is the internet so freaking different? The online culture has an unrealistic sense of entitlement when it comes to breaking the law.

The primary problem with that comic is that artist, bless him, can't actually draw.

If the Swedes are so passionate defending freedoms and stuff why are they such ardent pacifists when it comes to fighting wars against the Forces of Evil?

I blame Sam Peckinpah. I give you a Quentin Tarantino and raise you ten dollars.

To me it is not obvious. All these boards, in different countries, are roughly "advertising" (as you put it) for these various companies. Why is it OK to write **** on an advertisement in Sweden but not in America, if it is completely unrelated to American moral standards? What drives them to censor their own board? What are they scared of? Note that I am not claiming it to be written in law either way, I know they're 'voluntarily' censoring us (which you laughably refer to as their "liberty" to do so, unless you can find a place where self-censoring isn't allowed), just that it is what I believe Obsidian conforms to: they are scared of what the general American consumer thinks of them. OMG! It's called private property rights, a novel concept I know.

It's the Special Relationship, duh.

Mass Effect 3. Because, like, making new games is just so mid 1990s.

This is the problem with written constitutions. You need Common Law and the Monarchy. Come back, you know it makes sense.

I think making students live in barracks is a good idea. They should also have to have haircuts, wake up early, polish the insides of dustbins and bascially have a Drill Sergeant-from-Full-Metal-Jacket type character chase them around screaming. Constantly. This would do wonders for grades and the US economy in general.

The Daily Telegraph in the UK liked it.

Nice jacket, all you need now is a haircut and you're good to go.