Xbox Live banhammar

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Fanasse getting owned lol.

Also...



Why do you think this happened? Why do you think they did the banhammering in the first place? Could it possibly be anti-pirating measures. The only reason you think like that is because you got fucked in the ass... when in reality you're just making shit worse for everyone by continuing to pirate.

That's cute taking your grudge across forums for calling you out for posting fake pics. So silly day try harder please.

[Day]

That post seemed hypocritical did it not?

[Rokku]

Making a copy of copyrighted material you legally own for a purpose other than your own personal use or backup is indeed piracy and against the law.

Point out to me where I've backpedaled from this post and I'm more than willing to concede. You, on the other hand, have jumped from trying to say that said actions are perfectly legal, then to saying it isn't a crime because no one will prosecute, then to agreeing that it is indeed a copyright violation. Last time I checked you can't leverage a lawsuit against anyone without some sort of legal ground to stand on.

My point hasn't ever changed, I'm still trying to figure out what it is that you're trying to prove though.

[blev]

Fanasse getting owned lol.

Also...



Why do you think this happened? Why do you think they did the banhammering in the first place? Could it possibly be anti-pirating measures. The only reason you think like that is because you got fucked in the ass... when in reality you're just making shit worse for everyone by continuing to pirate.

you obviously missed the whole point of my post. by banning me for piracy, when i had not pirated anything, they pissed me off to the point where i unbanned the xbox on my own and now pirate games just to be a dick. if i cared about the consequences or problems it might cause, do you think i would still be doing it?

tl;dr = they fucked me over for no good reason, so now i'm fucking them over by getting free games. eye for an eye may not be the best way to handle things, but it seems to work well enough for me.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Point out to me where I've backpedaled from this post and I'm more than willing to concede. You, on the other hand, have jumped from trying to say that said actions are perfectly legal, then to saying it isn't a crime because no one will prosecute, then to agreeing that it is indeed a copyright violation. Last time I checked you can't leverage a lawsuit against anyone without some sort of legal ground to stand on.

My point hasn't ever changed, I'm still trying to figure out what it is that you're trying to prove though.

I clearly pointed out that it's not a copyright violation under federal law unless it surpasses a certain value. I pointed it out twice.

I then said state law may apply. Do you know how many states there are there Johnny? Want to count them out on this here map, bud?

Then I pointed out a civil suit is the most plausible action for a copyright infringement against a person that copies and gives, because no law has been broken.


You came out backing shit advice that could land someone in jail by suggesting they sell copies and it's just a "gray area not worth arguing", justifying it by falsely saying that giving it for free is the same crime. You were wrong, could have gotten someone seriously in trouble, and not only did I knock that dick out of your mouth I gave a legal suggestion about sharing with friends.

You show me where it says giving someone a free copy is the same as selling bootlegs. We all know bootlegging violates federal law and has a hefty punishment. The burden of proof is on you. I helped you by digging up that article which you decided to ignorantly take out of context to win an internet argument while I'm trying to give helpful advice so people don't shit their pants or make bad moves when sharing media.

[Day]

You have no idea what you are saying.

[Rokku]

You came out backing shit advice that could land someone in jail by suggesting they sell copies and it's just a "gray area not worth arguing", justifying it by falsely saying that giving it for free is the same crime. You were wrong, could have gotten someone seriously in trouble, and not only did I knock that dick out of your mouth I gave a legal suggestion about sharing with friends.

lol what? I never even suggested that it could land anyone in jail. I'm not quite sure where you get that from, but I'd like to see where I made that point or even suggested that was the case. In fact, I've mentioned multiple times that the odds that anyone would or could leverage charges against you for handing out a free copy of a DVD you own are slim to none. I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else.

You show me where it says giving someone a free copy is the same as selling bootlegs. We all know bootlegging violates federal law and has a hefty punishment. The burden of proof is on you. I helped you by digging up that article which you decided to ignorantly take out of context to win an internet argument while I'm trying to give helpful advice so people don't shit their pants or make bad moves when sharing media.

So your reasoning when you've hit a wall is to apply circular logic to the situation? I've never once said that selling bootlegs and giving a free copy to your bestest best bud were the same thing. Quite the contrary actually.

The only thing you're trying to do at this point is stomp up and down attempting to find a way to scream "I'm right" for all of BG to hear, while desperately scraping at some semblance of logic to do so. As far as I can tell you're pushing some ludicrous crusade against a comment someone else made through me.

If you'd step back a second from this raging crusade in every post you'd probably realize that what you seem to think I'm "saying" is nothing I've said anywhere.

[Qalbert]

he can't think straight. he's stroking his e-peen

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

lol what? I never even suggested that it could land anyone in jail. I'm not quite sure where you get that from, but I'd like to see where I made that point or even suggested that was the case. In fact, I've mentioned multiple times that the odds that anyone would or could leverage charges against you for handing out a free copy of a DVD you own are slim to none. I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else.



So your reasoning when you've hit a wall is to apply circular logic to the situation? I've never once said that selling bootlegs and giving a free copy to your bestest best bud were the same thing. Quite the contrary actually.

The only thing you're trying to do at this point is stomp up and down attempting to find a way to scream "I'm right" for all of BG to hear, while desperately scraping at some semblance of logic to do so. As far as I can tell you're pushing some ludicrous crusade against a comment someone else made through me.

If you'd step back a second from this raging crusade in every post you'd probably realize that what you seem to think I'm "saying" is nothing I've said anywhere.

Yeah in all of that whining you still didn't point to where it says giving a copy to a friend is a felony offense. You said it, but you can't back it up. I provided evidence to the contrary, but you're still pushing the issue.

I'm the one finding a way to scream "I'm right," now?

[Rokku]

Yeah in all of that whining you still didn't point to where it says giving a copy to a friend is a felony offense. You said it, but you can't back it up. I provided evidence to the contrary, but you're still pushing the issue.

I'm the one finding a way to scream "I'm right," now?

Never claimed it was a felony. But keep trying. Let me go ahead and re-quote my point to you, since you still seem to be missing it after this many pages.

Making a copy of copyrighted material you legally own for a purpose other than your own personal use or backup is indeed piracy and against the law.

My only point was that it is indeed illegal. But since this seems to be hard for you, let me quote you a couple things. You understand what a law is, I assume? That's a pretty easy one. Now, you realize the two things governing copyright protection are called the "United States Copyright Law" and "International Copyright Law" (If you're having issues with these two, I'm sure you can google them).

And now, here comes the kicker. Are you ready for this one?

il⋅le⋅gal
  /ɪˈligəl/ [i-lee-guhl]

–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

My god, I think we have real logic here.

[Mikayla]

While we're on the topic of illegal, I thought I'd post this;

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states

'k carry on gentlemen.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Never claimed it was a felony. But keep trying. Let me go ahead and re-quote my point to you, since you still seem to be missing it after this many pages.



My only point was that it is indeed illegal. But since this seems to be hard for you, let me quote you a couple things. You understand what a law is, I assume? That's a pretty easy one. Now, you realize the two things governing copyright protection are called the "United States Copyright Law" and "International Copyright Law" (If you're having issues with these two, I'm sure you can google them).

And now, here comes the kicker. Are you ready for this one?



My god, I think we have real logic here.

You're repeating yourself, do you not understand my request for a law stating that you will go to jail for giving someone a copy of media for free? I did, and it stated that unless the media is valued over $1000 you will not go to jail.

You have shown nothing to refute this, but you think that breaking copyright and going to civil court for damages is breaking the law. I can prove you wrong all day really, even when you try to talk over the issue and ignore the points that shot your argument down.

[Qalbert]

one person's interpretation of an ambiguous law =/= a law

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

There's no interpretation, unless you can quote the actual law. Can you?

[Rokku]

You're repeating yourself, do you not understand my request for a law stating that you will go to jail for giving someone a copy of media for free? I did, and it stated that unless the media is valued over $1000 you will not go to jail.

You have shown nothing to refute this, but you think that breaking copyright and going to civil court for damages is breaking the law. I can prove you wrong all day really, even when you try to talk over the issue and ignore the points that shot your argument down.

Why are you still on about this jail thing? You're fighting a war that doesn't exist. Why am I trying to prove to you again that your point is incorrect when it's a point that I've never made? I re-iterate, find me a spot where I've ever said copying a single DVD is worth sending someone to jail.

As for breaking the law, yes, when you're in violation of a regulation or standard set forth by US law, you are, indeed, breaking a law. Jaywalking is against the law, but you don't see anyone getting thrown into handcuffs for it. Or can you only wrap your feeble mind around the concept of breaking a law that involves handcuffs?

You really are starting to bore me though, I figured towards the beginning of this that I heard the gears of some sort of rational thought churning beneath your thick skull, but you've proven that idea wrong time and time again throughout this thread.

Your evasion of my request to point out where I've made this point about serving jail time over copying anything is amusing though. I don't know why you suddenly think you're the Captain Planet of piracy, or jumping to the rescue of misinformation, but you can huff and puff all you like dear wolf, but this piggy has a house made of bricks.

You can keep pissing into the wind though, it's still mildly amusing. As for the actual law, you might try reading it sometime.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

There's some big words in that document though, so I really don't expect you to make it too far.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Why are you still on about this jail thing? You're fighting a war that doesn't exist. Why am I trying to prove to you again that your point is incorrect when it's a point that I've never made? I re-iterate, find me a spot where I've ever said copying a single DVD is worth sending someone to jail.

As for breaking the law, yes, when you're in violation of a regulation or standard set forth by US law, you are, indeed, breaking a law. Jaywalking is against the law, but you don't see anyone getting thrown into handcuffs for it. Or can you only wrap your feeble mind around the concept of breaking a law that involves handcuffs?

You really are starting to bore me though, I figured towards the beginning of this that I heard the gears of some sort of rational thought churning beneath your thick skull, but you've proven that idea wrong time and time again throughout this thread.

Your evasion of my request to point out where I've made this point about serving jail time over copying anything is amusing though. I don't know why you suddenly think you're the Captain Planet of piracy, or jumping to the rescue of misinformation, but you can huff and puff all you like dear wolf, but this piggy has a house made of bricks.

You can keep pissing into the wind though, it's still mildly amusing. As for the actual law, you might try reading it sometime.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

There's some big words in that document though, so I really don't expect you to make it too far.

Another long winded post with evidence proving you wrong. You're good at owning yourself, I'm not sure why I even respond at this point.

While you tried to subversively post the entire copyright appendix without quoting or directly stating where it is illegal to give free copies of a purchased item with criminal penalties ( a piss poor attempt at evasion, were you afraid to read all of the big words in the document? ), I looked it up for you:

§ 2318 · Trafficking in counterfeit labels, illicit labels, or counterfeit documentation or packaging1

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c), knowingly traffics in —

(1) a counterfeit label or illicit label affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany —

(A) a phonorecord;

(B) a copy of a computer program;

(C) a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work;

(D) a copy of a literary work;

(E) a copy of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work;

(F) a work of visual art; or

(G) documentation or packaging; or

(2) counterfeit documentation or packaging, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) As used in this section —

(1) the term “counterfeit label” means an identifying label or container that appears to be genuine, but is not;

(2) the term “traffic” means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value or to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer or dispose of;

(3) the terms “copy”, “phonorecord”, “motion picture”, “computer program”, “audiovisual work”, “literary work”, “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work”, “sound recording”, “work of visual art”, and “copyright owner” have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17;

tl;dr? If you create counterfeit labels with intent to traffic ( see item (2) ) you are breaking the law and will face criminal prosecution. Trading for free can lead you to civil damages, but not criminal prosecution. In other words, you're a fucking moron that wasted all that time posting an essay and finding that link without even reading its contents.

You're terrible at this, any other bullshit evasive attempts to try there, pal?

[Rokku]

You're still just proving my point bro, all I've ever said was that it was illegal. Not that you'd go to jail, not that you'd face charges, not that you'd get sued. How long are you going to keep pushing on all these things that are supposedly part of my argument that never have been?

Also, thanks for taking the time to quote what I needed to prove the point that I've been trying to make from my first post with you. Love ya though, try not to blow your load quite so quick next time, I was wholeheartedly expecting you to drag this out another couple of posts before you finally tripped over your own feet.

For your reference though, let's try again.

Making a copy of copyrighted material you legally own for a purpose other than your own personal use or backup is indeed piracy and against the law.

Trading for free can lead you to civil damages, but not criminal prosecution.

Against the law doesn't always equal criminal prosecution. But you can keep trying to prove something that's never been a part of my point though.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You're still just proving my point bro, all I've ever said was that it was illegal. Not that you'd go to jail, not that you'd face charges, not that you'd get sued. How long are you going to keep pushing on all these things that are supposedly part of my argument that never have been?

Also, thanks for taking the time to quote what I needed to prove the point that I've been trying to make from my first post with you. Love ya though, try not to blow your load quite so quick next time, I was wholeheartedly expecting you to drag this out another couple of posts before you finally tripped over your own feet.

For your reference though, let's try again.





Against the law doesn't always equal criminal prosecution. But you can keep trying to prove something that's never been a part of my point though.

Changing your tune again? Civil damages has nothing to do with breaking the law. If my dog ruins your garden I didn't break the law, but you can sue me for damages. If I trip and fall on ice on your property I can sue you for damages, but you didn't break the law.

Jesus christ you're fucking dense. Please keep trying so hard though this is hilarious.

[oldoldman]

Hurray for multiple page arguments over semantics! (inb4 perm argues that this hasn't actually been going on for multiple pages or some such equally hilarious bullshit, also his obligatory quit riding my cock)

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You can't ride my cock and then make a stipulation about me saying you're riding my cock. Your trolling is shitty, but you're correct about pages of arguing about semantics.

Then again if people didn't argue for pages about semantics no one would post on BG, ergo you're whining about dumb shit everyone does but spending those points to grudge fuck me. Thx.