Sweden's Pirate Party win EU seat...

[ceman']No. Unless you started distributing it to people free of charge, there by hindering the newspapers ability to make profit and stay in business.

If everyone keeps passing around films and downloading them illegally then eventually they will stop being made. If a product is no longer profitable then the business that it supports will collapse.

It's not hypocrisy to break the law and yet accept it as reasonable at the same time.

The hypocrisy is in you saying one thing, while doing the other.

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Holding a value is different to upholding it. If your actions defy your beliefs and you acknowledge this, you are not a hypocrite.

I would disagree with you on that, in the sense that: If I accept that I am a hypocrite, I'm no longer a hypocrite? That doesn't make sense. Also by having values you do not uphold you are a hypocrite by definition.

It's not hypocrisy to break the law and yet accept it as reasonable at the same time.



Utter rubbish. It's immoral because you are stealing the intellectual property of another and, ultimately, the person who is distributing it is breaking the conditions of its purchase.



Selfish, left-wing bull-****. If someone owns something, they can charge whatever they ******* well like to someone who wants to buy it. That's not exploitation, that's property ownership. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Posts like this really ruin an interesting discussion.

There is no interesting discussion to be had.

If firms did not exploit there monopoly power and the consumer all things we "illegally" download would be virtually free.

The other side are parroting what the government has already told us.

Yet another case of those who think versus those who don't.

Your either delusional or stupid, your response is not an argument. You have restated your initial claim, well done.

I can only think of one album I would have actually gone out and bought had I not downloaded it. Even then my father has already paid for it once on vinyl.

What? No.

"if I accept that I am a hypocrite, I'm no longer a hypocrite"

No. I never said that. If you accept that your actions are wrong, you are not a hypocrite.

"also by having values you do not uphold you are a hypocrite by definition"

Yeah, you just said that and I corrected you before. Professing values you don't hold is not the same as professing values you don't uphold.

Contradicting your own professed beliefs with your true beliefs, particularly by altering your logic according to context, is hypocrisy. There is nothing hypocritical about doing something in spite of the fact that you acknowledge that you shouldn't.

It's not really up for discussion, because the word is fairly clearly defined and you are wrong.

No, of course he's not a hypocrite for that, but he is a hypocrite because he's on this forum telling everyone why download is wrong...

He not only believes downloading is wrong, he goes around telling everyone that it is, but he downloads himself.

No, he's not condemning people for downloading, he's saying that copyright is legitimate, which is entirely different.

Are you seriously arguing that without a downloading-possibility you would have only bought one album?

Red Hat Enterprise is an amazing example of open source software making money. Their model is based on charging for help and support and have profited out of it. Another model is making open source software and then charging for something like a "pro" version of it. My point is open source models can make money, you just need to be more creative than "oh lets put it at £200 and since we're the biggest developers/only ones making this in the market they'll have to buy it anyways".