113 réponses à ce sujet

[Busomjack]

reepneep wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

reepneep wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

So are you saying that you think that discussion of the subtleties of law and morality equates to outright endorsement of lawlessness and immorality?  Am I reading that right?

I think it depends.  If you're saying piracy is not theft for example you're advocating the breaking of the law.

As I said before, piracy is a legal term , not a moral term.  Current law interprets software piracy as theft.  It's not open for discussion, the law doesn't work that way.

Actually its copyright infringement with no monetary gain, not theft.  Ignoring the fact that the two have fundamental differences, if you want to talk law, stop using incorrect terminology.

The law (generally speaking) reflects the average moral judgements of the society that wrote them.  Law and morality are intrinsically linked, you can't discuss one without discussing the other.

Also, if law weren't open for interperitation, there'd be no reason for judges, apellate courts and a tiered system culminating in the Supreme Court.

You seem to have a black and white view of the world.  Nothing is that simple.

The law is open for interpretation...by judges who have already determined that piracy is a crime.  It's not open for interpretation by little dip ****s on piratebay who think they're Robin Hood.
I'm no lawyer, and you're right that copyright infringement is the correct terminology.  I'll conceded that.  The fact remains though that it is a crime and the high courts of virtually every nation on the planet recognize it as such.

The law does not have to reflect a moral consensus.  On the contrary, often times a judge has to tell the majority to go shove it.  We saw that during the civil rights era when the Supreme Court ruled school segregation as unconstitutional, and we saw it again when the courts ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion.  In the latter case, there sure as Hell is no consensus amongst the American people, especially in regards to it's morals and ethics.
In the USA, the law is whatever the courts say is the law.  The legislative branch has the right to write new laws but it's the judges who ultimately interpret them.

Until congress passes a bill that says all software is now open source, piracy will and always will be a crime.

If you say otherwise, you're enabling criminals and deserve to be treated as a criminal yourself.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

You've made the case about why DMCA is bad....for you, but not for the industry.  If it were bad for the industry, the policies would change.  You can do your part by not purchasing products that you don't find satisfactory.  Personally.

Oh, but it is. We did an anonymous survey back in high school about
students and digital media (mostly games). We surveyed 400 students, from whom 268 had
pirated software (5% of the students didn't own a computer). 9% of them did it because of the restrictions such as DRM or online activation on the media. From people who legitimately bought their software, 28% said that restrictions on software are a major factor when it comes to purchasing software products.

Busomjack wrote...

I think most consumers don't really invest as much emotion into the
issue as you do.

That survey was in 2008 but I personally believe that this number has grown by now and will continue to grow until the point where it doesn't make sense from a business perspective to impose all these ridiculous limitations on the software because it alienates potential customers. They do not help hinder piracy in any way and they only limit the rights of the legitimate customers, who will eventually stop buying the products. From all my time on various gaming forums it seems to be a rising trend.

Busomjack wrote...

I think most consumers don't really invest as much emotion into the
issue as you do.  DRM is kind of annoying yeah but I personally have
hardly ever had any real issue with it.  A couple of minor
incoveniences but nothing to shout about.

I'd say that I have a right to shout at DRM software
if it starts to hinder the normal behavior of my installed hardware or refuse to let me use products I've paid for because I have legitimate software such as Process Explorer running in
background. Not to mention the
internet-connection-required-to-play-a-single-player-game crap or the
10 day reactivation period that ME1 came with.

Modifié par madisk, 07 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

You've made the case about why DMCA is bad....for you, but not for the industry.  If it were bad for the industry, the policies would change.  You can do your part by not purchasing products that you don't find satisfactory.  Personally.

Oh, but it is. We did an anonymous survey back in high school about
students and digital media. We surveyed 400 students, from whom 268 had
pirated software (5% of the students didn't own a computer). 9% of them did it because of the restrictions such as DRM or online activation on the media. From people who legitimately bought their software, 28% said that restrictions on software are a major factor when it comes to purchasing software products.

Busomjack wrote...

I think most consumers don't really invest as much emotion into the
issue as you do.

That survey was in 2008 but I personally believe that this number has grown by now and will continue to grow until the point where it doesn't make sense from a business perspective to impose all these ridiculous limitations on the software because it alienates potential customers. They do not help hinder piracy in any way and they only limit the rights of the legitimate customers, who will eventually stop buying the products. From all my time on various gaming forums it seems to be a rising trend.

Busomjack wrote...

I think most consumers don't really invest as much emotion into the
issue as you do.  DRM is kind of annoying yeah but I personally have
hardly ever had any real issue with it.  A couple of minor
incoveniences but nothing to shout about.

I'd say that I have a right to shout at DRM software
if it starts to hinder the normal behavior of my installed hardware or refuse to let me use products I've paid for because I have legitimate software such as Process Explorer running in
background. Not to mention the
internet-connection-required-to-play-a-single-player-game crap or the
10 day reactivation period that ME1 came with.

If it's bad for the industry then fine, it should correct itself.  If not the industry will suffer for it.  As for your survey, I wouldn't put too much stock into it.  Pirates will make any excuse to justify their criminal behaviour.  It may be true for some of them but I think a lot of these pirates who whine about DRM would still pirate even if there were no DRM.  It's more about thinking they should get stuff for free rather than the injustice of DRM.

I don't dissagree with you though.  I just don't like seeing pirates use DRM as a scapegoat when it's obvious they will pirate games no matter what.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

Until congress passes a bill that says all software is now open source, piracy will and always will be a crime.

If you say otherwise, you're enabling criminals and deserve to be treated as a criminal yourself.

So people deserve to be treated as criminals just because they disagree with a certain rule? Conviction even if they did not actually engage in breaking the law? 

I disagree that making backup copies of my own legitimately bought software should be considered as copyright infridgement, even though the DMCA (where applicable) says so. Am I a criminal now?

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

I don't dissagree with you though.  I just don't like seeing pirates use DRM as a scapegoat when it's obvious they will pirate games no matter what.

Exactly, pirates will pirate games no matter what, so why should the legitimate buyer have to deal with all these often intrusive restrictions? Why should I be punished for an element completely out of my control?

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Until congress passes a bill that says all software is now open source, piracy will and always will be a crime.

If you say otherwise, you're enabling criminals and deserve to be treated as a criminal yourself.

So people deserve to be treated as criminals just because they disagree with a certain rule? Conviction even if they did not actually engage in breaking the law? 

I disagree that making backup copies of my own legitimately bought software should be considered as copyright infridgement, even though the DMCA (where applicable) says so. Am I a criminal now?

Not in the court of law, but these privately owned forums, owned by the company whose funding depends on the sale of games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins.  What kind of idiot thinks he can post sympathetically about piracy and not expect reprecussions?  
The guy deserved it.

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

I don't dissagree with you though.  I just don't like seeing pirates use DRM as a scapegoat when it's obvious they will pirate games no matter what.

Exactly, pirates will pirate games no matter what, so why should the legitimate buyer have to deal with all these often intrusive restrictions? Why should I be punished for an element completely out of my control?

They shouldn't!  I don't support current DRM policies not just because I think they punish legitimate consumers but mostly because I think they're ineffective.  I think game publishers should re-think their strategy and find methods which are actually effective.
However, the moment you decide to pirate a game you no longer have the right to complain.  I have no problem with discussions related to DRM reform but it should be for the benefit of actual consumers and not about the appeasement of pirates.

[Default137]

I like how this thread became a giant piracy rant.

The OP had stuff he PURCHASED, with REAL MONEY, taken away because he DISAGREED with the opinion held by Bioware/EA.

That doesn't strike you as horribly injust, unlawful, and probably illegal, and that someone should be taking a look at it?

It doesn't matter that the opinion was about Piracy, I don't like smokers, that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a ****ing smoker killing spree all of a sudden, so why should a person who has a different opinion about piracy suddenly lose everything he bought simpley because he said he doesn't mind pirates?

Modifié par Default137, 07 mars 2010 - 04:50 .

[Busomjack]

Default137 wrote...

I like how this thread became a giant piracy rant.

The OP had stuff he PURCHASED, with REAL MONEY, taken away because he DISAGREED with the opinion held by Bioware/EA.

That doesn't strike you as horribly injust, unlawful, and probably illegal, and that someone should be taking a look at it?

It doesn't matter that the opinion was about Piracy, I don't like smokers, that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a ****ing smoker killing spree all of a sudden, so why should a person who has a different opinion about piracy suddenly lose everything he bought simpley because he said he doesn't mind pirates?

He shouldn't.  I think he deserved to get banned from the forums as EA should not have to deal with people posting stuff which advocates practices which are harmful to their business, but yeah he's entitled to what he paid for.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

Not in the court of law, but these privately owned forums, owned by the company whose funding depends on the sale of games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins.  What kind of idiot thinks he can post sympathetically about piracy and not expect reprecussions?  
The guy deserved it.

Except that neither of us have read the post that got OP in trouble in the first place. He simply referred to it saying that he had posted somewhere saying that piracy does not equate to theft. That's a pretty vague statement and I wouldn't go about throwing the first stone before letting him elaborate.

Same goes for me. I wouldn't call piracy theft either, because it fundamentally clashes with the way the software world works. Copyright infridgement is a better term, but I don't agree making backup copies of my purchased software should be regarded as such. You seem to think otherwise and expressed your opinion that I should be treated as a criminal simply because I disagree with it. And that, my good Sir, is very, very far from the democratic process mentioned earlier.

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Not in the court of law, but these privately owned forums, owned by the company whose funding depends on the sale of games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins.  What kind of idiot thinks he can post sympathetically about piracy and not expect reprecussions?  
The guy deserved it.

Except that neither of us have read the post that got OP in trouble in the first place. He simply referred to it saying that he had posted somewhere saying that piracy does not equate to theft. That's a pretty vague statement and I wouldn't go about throwing the first stone before letting him elaborate.

Same goes for me. I wouldn't call piracy theft either, because it fundamentally clashes with the way the software world works. Copyright infridgement is a better term, but I don't agree making backup copies of my purchased software should be regarded as such. You seem to think otherwise and expressed your opinion that I should be treated as a criminal simply because I disagree with it. And that, my good Sir, is very, very far from the democratic process mentioned earlier.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a crime and defending it is the same thing as justifying it.  I don't know exactly what the OP posted but if he got banned for it then I'm sure he probably was portraying piracy in a sympathetic light since piracy is the new, cool thing that every "PC gaming rebel" likes to talk about.

It's not up to you to determine what is and isn't legal.  It doesn't matter if you think making backup copies isn't a crime because the law sees it otherwise.  Interpretation of law is not nor has it ever been democratic so I don't know why you keep using that word.
Do you really want to live in a society where the law is whatever an individual wants it to be? 

For example, I don't believe in mandatory auto insurance but I still have auto insurance for my car because that is what the law says.  Part of living in a stable society includes following laws you're not always 100 percent content with.

Modifié par Busomjack, 07 mars 2010 - 05:04 .

[reepneep]

Busomjack wrote...
The law is open for interpretation...by judges who have already determined that piracy is a crime.  It's not open for interpretation by little dip ****s on piratebay who think they're Robin Hood.
I'm no lawyer, and you're right that copyright infringement is the correct terminology.  I'll conceded that.  The fact remains though that it is a crime and the high courts of virtually every nation on the planet recognize it as such.

The law does not have to reflect a moral consensus.  On the contrary, often times a judge has to tell the majority to go shove it.  We saw that during the civil rights era when the Supreme Court ruled school segregation as unconstitutional, and we saw it again when the courts ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion.  In the latter case, there sure as Hell is no consensus amongst the American people, especially in regards to it's morals and ethics.
In the USA, the law is whatever the courts say is the law.  The legislative branch has the right to write new laws but it's the judges who ultimately interpret them.

Until congress passes a bill that says all software is now open source, piracy will and always will be a crime.

If you say otherwise, you're enabling criminals and deserve to be treated as a criminal yourself.

... and speaking the Devil's name will call him up.<_<

reepneep wrote...
You seem to have a black and white view of the world.  Nothing is that simple.

... and its pointless to converse with a zealot.

Modifié par reepneep, 07 mars 2010 - 05:06 .

[Busomjack]

Yeah because speaking in favor of a society governed by the law rather than anarchy where everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't legal is "zealotry."

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a crime and defending it is the same thing as justifying it.  I don't know exactly what the OP posted but if he got banned for it then I'm sure he probably was portraying piracy in a sympathetic light since piracy is the new, cool thing that every PC gaming rebel likes to talk about.

See, here's the problem. You don't know what he said, so how can you go about accusing him and saying he should be banned from the forums? I'm just glad you're not the one to render the final judgment.

Busomjack wrote...
It's not up to you to determine what is and isn't legal.  It doesn't matter if you think making backup copies isn't a crime because the law sees it otherwise.  Interpretation of law is not nor has it ever been democratic so I don't know why you keep using that word.
Do you really want to live in a society where the law is whatever an individual wants it to be? 

Actually, it is to a small extent up to me. You see, I live in a democratic society, and as far as democracy is concerned, the laws are made by the people (δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people"). I'm not interpeting the law in my favor, I'm merely discussing what's wrong with it (how many times do I have to tell you this?). People see something that's wrong with the system and they bring it up in a discussion. And that's the democratic process. If you have an issue with the everchanging legal system of the democratic world then maybe you'll find yourself better acclimatized in North Korea.

I'm not saying that just because I think the system is flawed it should be changed. I do however have the right to free speech and I choose to exercise it. Whether enough people bring up this issue to justify changing the laws is another thing, but I do believe that in a democracy, law should be in the best interest of all involved parties. DMCA, I believe is not, for reasons I've mentioned before (ineffective from a business perspective, doesn't hinder piracy one bit, severely limits the rights of the legitimate customer, severely limits the evolution of our society from a technological standpoint.)

Modifié par madisk, 07 mars 2010 - 05:14 .

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

Yeah because speaking in favor of a society governed by the law rather than anarchy where everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't legal is "zealotry."

You don't have a glimpse of understanding of either law, democracy or anarchy.

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a crime and defending it is the same thing as justifying it.  I don't know exactly what the OP posted but if he got banned for it then I'm sure he probably was portraying piracy in a sympathetic light since piracy is the new, cool thing that every PC gaming rebel likes to talk about.

See, here's the problem. You don't know what he said, so how can you go about accusing him and saying he should be banned from the forums? I'm just glad you're not the one to render the final judgment.

Busomjack wrote...
It's not up to you to determine what is and isn't legal.  It doesn't matter if you think making backup copies isn't a crime because the law sees it otherwise.  Interpretation of law is not nor has it ever been democratic so I don't know why you keep using that word.
Do you really want to live in a society where the law is whatever an individual wants it to be? 

Actually, it is to a small extent up to me. You see, I live in a democratic society, and as far as democracy is concerned, the laws are made by the people (δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people"). I'm not interpeting the law in my favor, I'm merely discussing what's wrong with it (how many times do I have to tell you this?). People see something that's wrong with the system and they bring it up in a discussion. And that's the democratic process. If you have an issue with the everchanging legal system of the democratic world then maybe you'll find yourself better acclimatized in North Korea.

I'm not saying that just because I think the system is flawed it should be changed. I do however have the right to free speech and I choose to exercise it. Whether enough people bring up this issue to justify changing the laws is another thing, but I do believe that in a democracy, law should be in the best interest of all involved parties. DMCA, I believe is not, for reasons I've mentioned before (ineffective from a business perspective, doesn't hinder piracy one bit, severely limits the rights of the legitimate customer, severely limits the evolution of our society from a technological standpoint.)

Well I don't live in a democracy.  I live in a representitive republic and I think that is a better means of legislating and interpreting law since your average citizens doesn't know a damn about good governance.  If law were interpreted by people in the USA then the civil rights act would've been a failure since the turning point was a court ruling that went against the majority of people.  There is a difference between advocating for different laws and breaking them.  What you're suggesting seems to fall more under the latter.  There are a lot of laws I don't like either but I sure as Hell am not going to break a law just because I don't agree with it.
Where I live, people don't interpret the laws, judges do and people do not elect judges.  They are appointed by politicians.  Those judges have said that piracy is illegal and their ruling must be respected because that is what it means to live in a lawful society.
I don't know what North Korea has to do with this discussion since private ownership doesn't even exist there to begin with but I would rather live in a dictatorship than live in a completely lawless society.

[reepneep]

Busomjack wrote...

Yeah because speaking in favor of a society governed by the law rather than anarchy where everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't legal is "zealotry."

Thats not what you're speaking in favor of.  You are saying that even discussing the law and crime in an academic sense should not be done because it encourages crime and that those who engage in such discussion should be considered criminals.  That is simpleminded zealotry.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"

Those are words everyone who values a free society should live by.

I would rather live in a dictatorship than live in a completely lawless society.

Oh.  Nevermind then.

Modifié par reepneep, 07 mars 2010 - 05:34 .

[Busomjack]

reepneep wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Yeah because speaking in favor of a society governed by the law rather than anarchy where everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't legal is "zealotry."

Thats not what you're speaking in favor of.  You are saying that even discussing the law and crime in an academic sense should not be done because it encourages crime and that those who engage in such discussion should be considered criminals.  That is simpleminded zealotry.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"

Those are words everyone who values a free society should live by.

I think you misinterpreted.  This whole post is about the actions of the original poster and EA's reaction to his post.  I think it is fair for EA to conclude that he is likely a criminal himself due to his advocacy of criminal behaviour and thus they have the right to kick him off their forums.
This is a privately held forum afterall that people have to agree to a TOS in order to join.  Constituaional protections and interpretations of law do not apply here.

Nice name dropping.  At least you didn't quote Ayn Rand.   Props.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

Well I don't live in a democracy.  I live in a representitive republic and I think that is a better means of legislating and interpreting law since your average citizens doesn't know a damn about good governance.  If law were interpreted by people in the USA then the civil rights act would've been a failure since the turning point was a court ruling that went against the majority of people.  There is a difference between advocating for different laws and breaking them.  What you're suggesting seems to fall more under the latter.  There are a lot of laws I don't like either but I sure as Hell am not going to break a law just because I don't agree with it.
Where I live, people don't interpret the laws, judges do and people do not elect judges.  They are appointed by politicians.  Those judges have said that piracy is illegal and their ruling must be respected because that is what it means to live in a lawful society.
I don't know what North Korea has to do with this discussion since private ownership doesn't even exist there to begin with but I would rather live in a dictatorship than live in a completely lawless society.

I've just wasted three hours of my life in this futile exercise of trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I've reached my breaking point. Who said anything about breaking the law? Did I say that Piracy should be made legal? I was trying to have a discussion about what's wrong with the law and how it should be changed.

For your information, in the federal republic of United States, you can still get what you want if you're a part of a larger interest group and you use lobbyists to push for the laws that most benefit you. It's the closest you can get to a democratic process in a government like that but it's still what I consider a democracy.

Furthermore, a civilian with good knowledge of the law can interpret and find loopholes in it to take advantage of the law for his own personal benefit. Judges are there to decide whether their interpretation of the law was incorrect should anyone lodge a complaint.

I'm done arguing with a brick wall. Don't expect another response unless you can be bothered to read my entire post paying attention to what I'm saying. I've honestly lost track of how many times I've told you that I do NOT think piracy should be legal. For this whole time you've been putting words in my mouth and judging OP based on assumptions.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

I think it is fair for EA to conclude that he is likely a criminal himself due to his advocacy of criminal behaviour and thus they have the right to kick him off their forums.

No, it's not.

This is simply the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Busomjack wrote...

Nice name dropping.  At least you didn't quote Ayn Rand.   Props.

Excellent rebuttal.

Modifié par madisk, 07 mars 2010 - 05:43 .

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Well I don't live in a democracy.  I live in a representitive republic and I think that is a better means of legislating and interpreting law since your average citizens doesn't know a damn about good governance.  If law were interpreted by people in the USA then the civil rights act would've been a failure since the turning point was a court ruling that went against the majority of people.  There is a difference between advocating for different laws and breaking them.  What you're suggesting seems to fall more under the latter.  There are a lot of laws I don't like either but I sure as Hell am not going to break a law just because I don't agree with it.
Where I live, people don't interpret the laws, judges do and people do not elect judges.  They are appointed by politicians.  Those judges have said that piracy is illegal and their ruling must be respected because that is what it means to live in a lawful society.
I don't know what North Korea has to do with this discussion since private ownership doesn't even exist there to begin with but I would rather live in a dictatorship than live in a completely lawless society.

I've just wasted three hours of my life in this futile exercise of trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I've reached my breaking point. Who said anything about breaking the law? Did I say that Piracy should be made legal? I was trying to have a discussion about what's wrong with the law and how it should be changed.

For your information, in the federal republic of United States, you can still get what you want if you're a part of a larger interest group and you use lobbyists to push for the laws that most benefit you. It's the closest you can get to a democratic process in a government like that but it's still what I consider a democracy.

Furthermore, a civilian with good knowledge of the law can interpret and find loopholes in it to take advantage of the law for his own personal benefit. Judges are there to decide whether their interpretation of the law was incorrect should anyone lodge a complaint.

I'm done arguing with a brick wall. Don't expect another response unless you can be bothered to read my entire post paying attention to what I'm saying. I've honestly lost track of how many times I've told you that I do NOT think piracy should be legal. For this whole time you've been putting words in my mouth and judging OP based on assumptions.

So you're saying lobbying is democratic?  I'd argue it is more plutocratic since it is power determined by wealth.  Surely someone making minimum wage couldn't benefit from lobbying?  You should move to K-Street, you'd fit right in.
I'm glad you and I finally agree that it is indeed a judge, and not people who interpret the law.  If a judge decides that all software is open source, then that is the law.  I think it would be disastrous and I would hope it gets overturned by a higher court but the law is the law.  That is the way our government is set up and it's our responsibility as citizens to obey the law.

I have read your post and even though you haven't specifically said that piracy is ok, you've tacitly endorsed it through your defense of criminal behaviour and victimization of people who are criminals.

[Sir Shendar]

@meznaric: You should contact EA support chat. They (most likely) will reinstate your access. It may take several connection attempts or chat conversations (from personal experience: chat timed out 3 times for me and first EA rep. I talked to didn't solve my game key issue completely).

@Busomjack: You might want to read this:

6. "No Topics of an illicit or illegal nature. Warez, software piracy, illegal activites, pornography, posting copyrighted material or scans of such material, etc. are not welcome here and will be removed without warning. Posters of such material will be dealt with on a case by case basis. A person or persons found to discuss such matters may be banned from these forums at the discretion of the staff." 

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

I think it is fair for EA to conclude that he is likely a criminal himself due to his advocacy of criminal behaviour and thus they have the right to kick him off their forums.

No, it's not.

This is simply the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Busomjack wrote...

Nice name dropping.  At least you didn't quote Ayn Rand.   Props.

Excellent rebuttal.

LOL!  It doesn't matter what you think!  This is not YOUR forum, it's EA and you agreed to their TOS.  You don't like it, then go create your own forum.  Otherwise quit whining and deal with the rules you agreed too.

I just think it's funny when people drop the names of random political and economic philosophers in order to make their posts sound more profound.  If what you say cannot stand on it's own then I say you shouldn't even bother.

Nevertheless I was impressed that he quoted someone other than Ayn Rand since Aynd Rand is the token philosopher that every internet pseudo-inetllectual likes to bring up.

[Busomjack]

Sir Shendar wrote...

@meznaric: You should contact EA support chat. They (most likely) will reinstate your access. It may take several connection attempts or chat conversations (from personal experience: chat timed out 3 times for me and first EA rep. I talked to didn't solve my game key issue completely).

@Busomjack: You might want to read this:

6. "No Topics of an illicit or illegal nature. Warez, software piracy, illegal activites, pornography, posting copyrighted material or scans of such material, etc. are not welcome here and will be removed without warning. Posters of such material will be dealt with on a case by case basis. A person or persons found to discuss such matters may be banned from these forums at the discretion of the staff." 

I didn't create the topic.  If anyone will suffer additional rammifications it will be the OP.

[reepneep]

Busomjack wrote...
I think you misinterpreted.  This whole post is about the actions of the original poster and EA's reaction to his post.  I think it is fair for EA to conclude that he is likely a criminal himself due to his advocacy of criminal behaviour and thus they have the right to kick him off their forums.
This is a privately held forum afterall that people have to agree to a TOS in order to join.  Constituaional protections and interpretations of law do not apply here.

Nice name dropping.  At least you didn't quote Ayn Rand.   Props.

Ugh, don't even get me started on that sociopathic ****.

The conversation may have started there but it didnt stay there long.  I'll quote you.

Busomjack wrote...
I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.

Busomjack wrote...
I think it depends.  If you're saying piracy is not theft for example you're advocating the breaking of the law.

Busomjack wrote...
If you say otherwise, you're enabling criminals and deserve to be treated as a criminal yourself.

...and OMG did you really just say this?

Busomjack wrote...
Well I don't live in a democracy.  I live in a representitive republic
and I think that is a better means of legislating and interpreting law
since your average citizens doesn't know a damn about good governance.
 If law were interpreted by people in the USA then the civil rights act
would've been a failure since the turning point was a court ruling that
went against the majority of people.  There is a difference between
advocating for different laws and breaking them.  What you're
suggesting seems to fall more under the latter.  There are a lot of
laws I don't like either but I sure as Hell am not going to break a law
just because I don't agree with it.
Where I live, people don't
interpret the laws, judges do and people do not elect judges.  They are
appointed by politicians.  Those judges have said that piracy is
illegal and their ruling must be respected because that is what it
means to live in a lawful society.
I don't know what North Korea has
to do with this discussion since private ownership doesn't even exist
there to begin with but I would rather live in a dictatorship than live
in a completely lawless society.

Amending to: simpleminded, disengenuous, authoritarian zealot.

Or a troll.

Either way, there's too much crazy in here, I'm going home.