Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?

[Fop 1]

*witters*

 

Actually I wonder if your selling of your DvD technically breaches their "law"?

 

No, it doesn't.

Are you sure? I'm fairly sure they wouldn't go after you, but after the other cases that have been upheld, if your turnover was high enough (in fact didn't they go after demo sales recently?).

[The Fish 11080]

I like free things.

[Happy Face 29]

*witters*

 

Actually I wonder if your selling of your DvD technically breaches their "law"?

 

No, it doesn't.

Are you sure? I'm fairly sure they wouldn't go after you, but after the other cases that have been upheld, if your turnover was high enough (in fact didn't they go after demo sales recently?).

 

Why don't you buy some and we'll see what happens.

[ChezGiven 0]

Both the companies and the artists are losing out.

 

And even if that is the case (which is it patently not) that justifies violating the rights of the rest of society does it?

 

 

5 pages you've been fly fishing with rights violation argument and you still haven't had a single bite. I think it's time to pack up the bait box and go home for a nip of whisky in front of the fire.

 

 

You've just sharpened his next presentation for him.

 

He's good at ignoring, but not so good at addressing awkward questions, be they about Singapore relative economic size, the need to produce new drugs, the legal and moral issues of root-kits and privacy invasion, or indeed generic drugs.

 

But he's a good suit, I'll give him that.

 

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

[Fop 1]

Why don't you buy some and we'll see what happens.

You'll be working for recording/drug companies, used car sales next.

[Fop 1]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

 

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

You can tell me why stopping cheap drugs to help with AIDs is perfectly moral issue too if you want.

[ChezGiven 0]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

There you go again, utterly clueless response. An insurance based system is made up of multiple competing companies who each organise their own schemes, they arent run by the govt so the tax base and GDP levels are irrelevant. Except that the bigger the economy, the more competitive and efficient the sector. Not the other way round you muppet. There were no other points to respond to in that thread and plenty you didnt address, have a read through again and try dealing with the points made instead of posting analytically hollow nonsense.

[Fop 1]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

There you go again, utterly clueless response. An insurance based system is made up of multiple competing companies who each organise their own schemes, they arent run by the govt so the tax base and GDP levels are irrelevant. Except that the bigger the economy, the more competitive and efficient the sector. Not the other way round you muppet. There were no other points to respond to in that thread and plenty you didnt address, have a read through again and try dealing with the points made instead of posting analytically hollow nonsense.

 

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

You can tell me why stopping cheap drugs to help with AIDs is perfectly moral issue too if you want.

[ChezGiven 0]

Start a thread on it.

[Fop 1]

Start a thread on it.

 

This is it.

 

 

Like I said you're a good suit, but rubbish at the answering awkward questions bit.

[ChezGiven 0]

This thread is about AIDS? You're warped.

 

The other question is just bollocks as it doesnt relate to the idea of breach of copyright, its a response to the illegal behaviour.

[Park Life 71]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

There you go again, utterly clueless response. An insurance based system is made up of multiple competing companies who each organise their own schemes, they arent run by the govt so the tax base and GDP levels are irrelevant. Except that the bigger the economy, the more competitive and efficient the sector. Not the other way round you muppet. There were no other points to respond to in that thread and plenty you didnt address, have a read through again and try dealing with the points made instead of posting analytically hollow nonsense.

 

That 'click' is the sound of Chez going up a gear.

[Tooj 17]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

There you go again, utterly clueless response. An insurance based system is made up of multiple competing companies who each organise their own schemes, they arent run by the govt so the tax base and GDP levels are irrelevant. Except that the bigger the economy, the more competitive and efficient the sector. Not the other way round you muppet. There were no other points to respond to in that thread and plenty you didnt address, have a read through again and try dealing with the points made instead of posting analytically hollow nonsense.

 

That 'click' is the sound of Chez going up a gear.

That's a relief. I thought it was the sound of my heart stopping.

[The Fish 11080]

Singapore's relative economic size makes it more difficult to use risk-diversification in insurance plans, not easier. Ask any economist.

 

I'm at this point in the debate with you

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=492106

 

You want to progress the debate, put it on an even footing.

 

Again though it's much easier to manage with their GNP and tax burden (which is very different from the UK).

 

But that's still one point just another 7 or 8 to address now.

 

 

 

There you go again, utterly clueless response. An insurance based system is made up of multiple competing companies who each organise their own schemes, they arent run by the govt so the tax base and GDP levels are irrelevant. Except that the bigger the economy, the more competitive and efficient the sector. Not the other way round you muppet. There were no other points to respond to in that thread and plenty you didnt address, have a read through again and try dealing with the points made instead of posting analytically hollow nonsense.

 

That 'click' is the sound of Chez going up a gear.

That's a relief. I thought it was the sound of my heart stopping.

I was scared it was the top popping off Jimbo's roofie tin.

[Guest alex]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

[sammynb 3640]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

 

Once you get to the third page it's like a Dan Brown novel and you just know it's time to go straight to the end and hope you can find meaning in the end.

[ChezGiven 0]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

 

I stopped reading his posts when he started to re-cycle the same point about what i may or may not do for a living.

[Fop 1]

This thread is about AIDS? You're warped.

 

The other question is just bollocks as it doesnt relate to the idea of breach of copyright, its a response to the illegal behaviour.

 

 

No it's about:

 

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

Which you won't answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stopping cheap drugs for AIDs bit is just a related issue for the drugs industry, which is a pretty strong MORAL issue considering you're so high and mighty about some morals on this issue.

[Fop 1]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

I just like to point out hypocrisy (you try too - see this post). But me enjoying pissing people off when they go "so what do you do then you fucking cunt" when they are just looking for ammunition isn't the same thing at all.

 

It is quite funny how knotted up about it you all get though. (which of course adds to the fun)

[Happy Face 29]

They say AIDS is now chronic, rather than fatal.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523212.stm

 

[Fop 1]

The brass neck on Fop for

 

having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

 

I stopped reading his posts when he started to re-cycle the same point about what i may or may not do for a living.

 

You started (back in the NHS thread never mind this one) selectively ignoring all the awkward bits like:

 

 

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

 

Like I said you're a good suit (you tow the company/industry line well) but you are completely at answering the awkward questions or anything outside that line.

 

So are you going to address that point? Aye, thought not.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Fop

[Fop 1]

They say AIDS is now chronic, rather than fatal.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523212.stm

 

 

 

With the right drugs it pretty much is. However there's the moral issue I was talking about and (one of) which Chez simply won't engage, because he knows profits >>>>>>> morality every time.

[Guest alex]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

I just like to point out hypocrisy (you try too - see this post). But me enjoying pissing people off when they go "so what do you do then you fucking cunt" when they are just looking for ammunition isn't the same thing at all.

 

It is quite funny how knotted up about it you all get though. (which of course adds to the fun)

It's quite funny that you view what you do for a living as something people could easily score points from. No one buys the rest of what you wrote by the way. I'm sure even you realise that, even if you aren't as clever as you'd like to think.

[Fop 1]

The brass neck on Fop for having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

I just like to point out hypocrisy (you try too - see this post). But me enjoying pissing people off when they go "so what do you do then you fucking cunt" when they are just looking for ammunition isn't the same thing at all.

 

It is quite funny how knotted up about it you all get though. (which of course adds to the fun)

It's quite funny that you view what you do for a living as something people could easily score points from. No one buys the rest of what you wrote by the way. I'm sure even you realise that, even if you aren't as clever as you'd like to think.

 

I don't (I'm sure I've even said it on here), but it's more fun to annoy people that "ask" like that or assume (and it leads to priceless obsessions like this - plus if I said now I'd just be accused of lying ).

 

 

 

 

 

But none of that any of that is getting an answer for:

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

Or indeed getting a comment from Chez about the MORAL (he brought that particular glasshouse up) issues about cheap drugs for AIDs/HIV and such.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Fop

[ChezGiven 0]

The brass neck on Fop for

 

having a pop at someone for not answering questions.

 

I stopped reading his posts when he started to re-cycle the same point about what i may or may not do for a living.

 

You started (back in the NHS thread never mind this one) selectively ignoring all the awkward bits like:

 

 

I still genuinely want to know why it's a big issue for an artist (or as we won't be swallowing that canard here - the recording company) to miss out on £££'s is a serious moral and legal issue, yet illegally installing software or invasion of privacy by monitoring of internet usage is not a serious moral and legal issue?

 

 

Like I said you're a good suit (you tow the company/industry line well) but you are completely at answering the awkward questions or anything outside that line.

 

So are you going to address that point? Aye, thought not.

 

I dont care about your privacy though, i care about my mate's income being eroded by piracy.

 

The question is therefore off topic and irrelevant to me, which is why i didnt focus on it. However, if you want my thoughts, i dont believe people who break the law can complain about losing privacy against law-enforcers. I believe its the same as when you are a criminal and get your phone tapped. If you are innocent, its a breach of privacy, if you are guilty then i dont see the problem. If this proposed change allows people to be identified by name who have not broken the law, then it would not be a passable law or action and wont be implemented.

 

If you want a discussion on AIDS and access to medicines in the developing world, be my guest and start a thread on it setting out clearly what you think the issue is and what questions you have.