Re: dvd recorder/player

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:40:47 -0600, Jer used
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
 
>Kurt Hamster wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:53:54 -0600, Jer used
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
>>  
>> 
>>>Camper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rick Pali wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I really have no need to do this, but I'm curious. I've only made three
>>>>>>copies of video DVDs so far: once to see if I could, and twice because
>>>>
>>>>I'd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>rented movies and they were due back before I was able to view them. I
>>>>>>burned copies to re-writables so I could recover the discs after
>>>>
>>>>watching
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>them. Now that's convenience...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...and also illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Budding little lawyer aren't you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, not really - I dislike thieves regardless of their chosen venue. 
>>>And if one wanders in here and admits to such, they can damn well expect 
>>>to get tagged for it.
>> 
>> 
>> They aren't thieves though. 
>> 
>> To be guilty of theft one must have taken property with the intention of
>> permanently depriving the legal owner of it.
>> 
>> I dislike pious bastards and if one wanders in here and demonstrates as
>> such then they can damn well expect to get tagged for it.
>
>As I understand it, copying copyrighted material without paying for the 
>priviledge IS depriving the copyright owner of their property.

Then you understand it wrong. Simple really! 

The operative word being "property", not profit. A pirate does not
deprive a copyright holder of any property as the copyright holder still
has 'his' film (his property) in his own possession.

Now do you understand it?

>Is there something about this legal concept that eludes your 
>understanding?  I'm no attorney so I won't pretend to be one, but my own 

The legal concept you refer to is copyright infringement. It isn't
theft, never has been theft, never will be theft. Does that elude your
understanding?

>attorney has explained this concept to me in terms even a pious bastard 
>couldn't possibly misunderstand.  So, as a result, I sleep pretty good 
>in my own pious bed.

It sounds like your attorney dumbed it down too much, even so you still
managed to misunderstand it.

Which only goes to show that piety != intelligence.