Is invite trading really that bad?

[ca_aok]

It helps if you drink some before passing out too. I generally chug a litre or so before doing so.

[A]

And I think you're the one who could do with some googling of copyright infringement, since you seem to think it's the same thing as theft.

And the problem with you is that you think you arent stealing,how naive.The famous argument "Copying files is not theft" is horseshit really and everyone knows it as well.People are comparing two different systems on the same level.In real world copying may not be a big deal because there is no loss to the creator but when a digital file gets copied,it deprives the creators the money they deserve for the work they did.They are not "working" for free now are they?Its kinda lame read but since you are in denial phase,pondering on these things is really nice.Its for that reason copyright laws are enforced and it becomes a crime to break it.But unlike you here,I know very well of what I am doing instead of pretending that I am doing nothing wrong.

And quite frankly, I really don't care what your thoughts are on my sense of morality, as you're clearly lacking one yourself (which of course is fine).

Now who was the one saying trading/cheating is morally wrong,was it me?I never said I followed moral principles but I sure well understand the concept of morality.When you argue rules built around an "illegal" system is morally correct,it reeks of stupidity ain't it?But then again you think what you do is not illegal,like psychos think what they do is correct.

If it makes you feel better to call yourself a thief, do so.

So if a thief rationalizes himself into thinking that he is not a thief that makes a thief not a thief?

I didn't escape anything

You have been escaping all along.

Good, you agree.

Yes I agree on the fact that there are sites out there that takes time,effort and socialization to get an invite.

So are collectors any good?

Nope, but that's completely irrelevant to this thread.

How come it is irrelevant,When collectors who spend their time,effort and does write fucking long paragraphs are the same as a trader.You said this din't you "traders are too lazy to write anything more than a few words, too lazy to fill out an application or take an interview, and too lazy to give anything back to any site they join. Fucking over the people who're risking their asses so that you can download free stuff might be fine for you, that's your call."

Read some of my earlier replies, I'm not here to constantly repeat myself.

You constantly make no sense.

[ca_aok]

If you don't understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft (which is a legal definition, not a made up one like your view on the matter), then I'm done with you. You clearly have no inclination to listen to anything but the incorrect bullshit you spew. Collectors are a problem for a whole different reason outside the entire scope of this thread, which has to do with trading, period.

You're the one who's escaping reality here. I'm quite aware that I'm breaking the law, but I'm not committing theft. Arguing that everyone who downloads something equates to a lost sale is quite simply retarded logic. I'd never have bought 90% of what I've pirated, and the other 10% has generally been bought after the fact.

[hagckz0r]

Arguing that everyone who downloads something equates to a lost sale is quite simply retarded logic.

Well believe it or not, that is exactly a lost sale. Hehe, I just discovered gravity .

[deadalive1]

Actually no it isn't, I have downloaded CD's from the net and after listening to them decided I liked them and then went out and bought the CD (therefore showing my support for the artist). So no, not "exactly" a lost sale.

[1000possibleclaws]

"Yeah you're a beautiful consumer,
and I don't want to move back home.
So download all the songs we wrote
and hype it up with some bullshit quotes.
Yeah, we're on a roll." - Kristian Hallbert

[A]

If you don't understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft (which is a legal definition, not a made up one like your view on the matter)

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Comparison to theft
Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985)

Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, in Vice President Joe Biden's 2010 statement in an official speech showcasing the Obama-administration IP policy that "file-sharing is theft", and in the Digital Britain report which calls it "effectively a civil form of theft"[56]; but in fact it has major legal differences.

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[57] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law.

Source:Wikipedia with valid sources inline.
By the above even if copyright infringement is not exactly theft in black and white,It does have the same characteristics of theft.But since digital files have a different "physical property" than real world objects,it gives several loop holes to argue the topic theft vs copying when it comes to digital files.

but I'm not committing theft.

yea you are getting files for free when you should have bought it.

Actually no it isn't, I have downloaded CD's from the net and after listening to them decided I liked them and then went out and bought the CD (therefore showing my support for the artist). So no, not "exactly" a lost sale.

Arguing that everyone who downloads something equates to a lost sale is quite simply retarded logic. I'd never have bought 90% of what I've pirated, and the other 10% has generally been bought after the fact.

We are not talking about business models here and proving if giving shit for free will inturn increase sales or not.We are not talking about what triggered you to pay/buy or about your collection.When a Music/Movie is out there,it is supposed to be bought.Not pirating it and then buying it if you liked it or some BS like that.
Every download is equal to a lost sale is bullshit.But they are not asking you to make copies either.They are stating,If you want something,pay for it.If you dont wanna listen/watch its fine.We dont give a rats ass.But if you wanna listen/watch then pay for it.They dont care if 90% of people dosent buy their product,they are just concerned about the 10% that pay for the product.Thats how they make it out to be.But we being pirates do what we want.

You're the one who's escaping reality here. I'm quite aware that I'm breaking the law,

That was hilarious.So you have no problem in breaking the law but you throw the moral bullshit at people who break the system of an illegally run tracker.

[n00bz0r]

[deadalive1]

lol n00bz0r I second your

[ca_aok]

Thanks for quoting an article that proves I was right and you were wrong, I appreciate it. Then you proceed to try and argue your failure of a point after the proof is quoted directly above. Just because you "feel" something is theft, doesn't make it so, whether in the eyes of the law or the general public.

And I have no idea what you're blabbering about with your RIAA style trolling, but there's never been any proof that a download is a lost sale. There's no way I'd buy everything I pirate, and that's the simple and indisputable truth for a huge portion of pirates out there.

We get it. You're a badass software pirate who's breaking all the rules and couldn't give a shit about it. No one cares.

Maybe a picture will help you understand.