All because he used a common word, that laymen use all the time with respect to copyright infringement, and that even lawyers and judges are known to use occasionally.
Who is hysterical, again?
Not only is the term used extensibly, including by the FBI ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr ), but also in the US legal code, "Criminal infringement of a copyright" is a subcategory of "Chapter 113: Stolen property" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113 ). So, your pedantic distinction only matters inside a court room, and under very rigid circumstances (for example, lawyers argue all the time using the word "theft" for the issue). Outside of the court room, anyone can use any word he damn pleases, and lots of people choose to use stealing to describe C.I. Moreover, this is not an American issue only, and other languages and legislations make no such distinction against "copyright infringement" and "stealing".
3. Whether Kim is breaking a law or not is not the point of this dicussion (another strawman here): the discussion is does the (il)leagailty of it make sense?
And who exactly are you to define what the exact "point of this discussion" is? The point of the discussion is whatever is relevant to the issue, and both questions are relevant, as are many more.
4. Amazing improbable thinking does not grant one rights to someone else's pocketbook. Much like people should pay for stuff, by the same token, saying they should then suing them for actions they didn't and may never have taken is absurd. I should get paid $1 per read of this comment, there HN readers owe me a few $K.
If you made your comment available only on a per pay basis, on your own platform, you absolutely should. But since you don't control HN and neither it's a pay site, so you don't have the option to do so.
All because he used a common word, that laymen use all the time with respect to copyright infringement, and that even lawyers and judges are known to use occasionally.
Common usage does not make an argument or term not hyperbolic. Right after 9/11 we were subject to "do this or the terrorists win" language all the time, for many many silly things, yet that was still a hyperbolic argument.
Moreover, this is not an American issue only, and other languages and legislations make no such distinction against "copyright infringement" and "stealing".
Actually they do. Theft is a different class of felony with different laws than copyright. Further, something being illegal does not make it immoral, which the poster I was replying to claimed.
And who exactly are you to define what the exact "point of this discussion" is? The point of the discussion is whatever is relevant to the issue, and both questions are relevant, as are many more.
I'm not making a claim to be the definer of the point of the discussion, just paraphrasing what the author of the post wrote, when he claimed not to be against copyright nor for kim, but instead asking if the way the situation was handled was government propping up a monopoly, and whether the laws made sense. To go off on a side rant about how bs it is to defend kim, and how this is obviously not a problem because of existing laws is in fact blatant point missing. To defend such actions because you don't like me vigorously defending a point is disingenuous.
5. Wow, I really fed this troll didn't I?
No, you trolled on your own.
Not trolling. Pointing out why an argument is bad and irrelevant is a pretty ok response to a bad and irrelevant argument. It isn't trolling, it is making clear that the emperor is naked.
1) Hyperbolic 2) hysterically 3) whine 4)force 5) crap 6) down our throats.
All because he used a common word, that laymen use all the time with respect to copyright infringement, and that even lawyers and judges are known to use occasionally.
Who is hysterical, again?
Not only is the term used extensibly, including by the FBI ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr ), but also in the US legal code, "Criminal infringement of a copyright" is a subcategory of "Chapter 113: Stolen property" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113 ). So, your pedantic distinction only matters inside a court room, and under very rigid circumstances (for example, lawyers argue all the time using the word "theft" for the issue). Outside of the court room, anyone can use any word he damn pleases, and lots of people choose to use stealing to describe C.I. Moreover, this is not an American issue only, and other languages and legislations make no such distinction against "copyright infringement" and "stealing".
3. Whether Kim is breaking a law or not is not the point of this dicussion (another strawman here): the discussion is does the (il)leagailty of it make sense?
And who exactly are you to define what the exact "point of this discussion" is? The point of the discussion is whatever is relevant to the issue, and both questions are relevant, as are many more.
4. Amazing improbable thinking does not grant one rights to someone else's pocketbook. Much like people should pay for stuff, by the same token, saying they should then suing them for actions they didn't and may never have taken is absurd. I should get paid $1 per read of this comment, there HN readers owe me a few $K.
If you made your comment available only on a per pay basis, on your own platform, you absolutely should. But since you don't control HN and neither it's a pay site, so you don't have the option to do so.
5. Wow, I really fed this troll didn't I?
No, you trolled on your own.