Ships to Gaza incident

[Wezil]

Egypt has agreed to not attack Israel.

An indirect Israel expense.

[Asher]

It's fascinating that Asher still hasn't come up with a coherent reason for why it's bad Israel did this in international waters other than "it's against the law".

Movie piracy is also against the law, but IIRC Asher has a pretty large hard drive full of them

My movies I get from ripping from DVDs I rent. It is not illegal in Canada to circumvent copy protection and "back up" media...yet. I subscribe to an unlimited rental plan.

And I don't need a reason why it's bad. As I said MANY TIMES, and something you have YET TO COMPREHEND...it is the legal principle. I've used that phrase explicitly, you've no excuse for not comprehending this except gross stupidity.

[Asher]

Er... yes you can, you can charge them if you think they have committed murder and you think you can prove it, sometimes in the UK at least suspects need to be formally charged to allow you to question them further. Quite often people who didn't actually commit the murder are charged.

You either didn't understand the context of the post or you're trying a terrible troll.

Of course you can accuse people and charge people with murder if you think they HAVE murdered someone. That doesn't apply in this case because the Israelis have never accused the ship of PREVIOUSLY entering their territory. Separate and distinct.

[Asher]

The moral right to kill 9 innocent people doesn't come from lines on a map, and if you think it does you're a monster.

Your pathetic attempts to keep equating a legal question to that of morality is exceptionally moronic.

If your position is that laws only exist when morals are to be defended or upheld, you should take that idiotic argument to a filosofy thread where you can discuss it with other pretentious beret-wearing people.

[Asher]

You are invalidly assuming that these people were innocent.

You are invalidly assuming otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty, have you heard of that principle?

I'd like to see your proof that the 9 people killed were breaking ANY laws at the time of their deaths, or prior to.

The only moral question here is whether Israel has a right to defend itself with a blockade of Gaza and the people who actually matter--the US congress--seems to have already made up its mind.

The US congress has no bearing on the situation. The incidents occurred well beyond US borders and jurisdiction. The only people who matter here are the UN and The Hague.

[Dinner]

That trending is good. I mentioned the downtrend several posts ago. But what is your point? Israel is still our #1 aid recipient (that we are not currently nation-building in) by a long shot.

And if the #1 aid recipient only gets $2.4 billion it just goes to show how little government aid we give.

[MrFun]

My movies I get from ripping from DVDs I rent. It is not illegal in Canada to circumvent copy protection and "back up" media...yet. I subscribe to an unlimited rental plan.

That's interesting. In the United States, renting a DVD does not give you any right or privilege to legally make a copy of it for you to keep.

[Asher]

That's interesting. In the United States, renting a DVD does not give you any right or privilege to legally make a copy of it for you to keep.

Far as I know, it's only illegal to break DVD copy protection explicitly. Not sure there's even any law about backing up a rental DVD...you're just not allowed to back up DVDs, period.

Canada doesn't have any current laws about backing up DVDs. I pay for full unlimited access to 75,000+ DVDs through zip.ca and I back up the ones I get.

It's not strictly illegal in Canada yet, far as I know.

Then again, Kuci's comparison of ripping rented DVDs to the murder of 9 people is pretty telling.

[Al B. Sure!]

Asher:

But you're making a 'backup' of something you do not actually own... I realize that your unlimited access plan complicates matters, but generally speaking, you're only permitted to make copies of something you own.

The illegal copying thing in the US has more to do with copying in order to distribute than anything else. The act of making a copy, as far as I know, is not illegal. Things may have changed though with new media, but I remember all the old FBI warnings on VHS tapes only warned against copying to distribute.

[Al B. Sure!]

hmm... did it always say 'or' like that? What would an authorized copy be? Is a backup unauthorized?

[Asher]

Asher:

But you're making a 'backup' of something you do not actually own... I realize that your unlimited access plan complicates matters, but generally speaking, you're only permitted to make copies of something you own.

It's no different than being able to stream the movies at any time online from Netflix's unlimited service.

The illegal copying thing in the US has more to do with copying in order to distribute than anything else. The act of making a copy, as far as I know, is not illegal

It is, because to do so you circumvent DRM which is illegal in the US (DMCA act).

[MrFun]

AS, I also believe that there is a second warning before or after that, that applies to international law on copyright material.

But, in Asher's case, he would only be affected if Canada observes and adheres to those particular international laws.

[MrFun]

It's no different than being able to stream the movies at any time online from Netflix's unlimited service.

It is different, because AFAIK, you're only suppose to WATCH a Netflix instant movie on your computer/TV. This is not meant to permit you to make a permanent copy of it.

[Kuciwalker]

And I don't need a reason why it's bad. As I said MANY TIMES, and something you have YET TO COMPREHEND...it is the legal principle. I've used that phrase explicitly, you've no excuse for not comprehending this except gross stupidity.

And what you don't seem to follow is that people who think the legal principle is important regardless of material consequences are idiots

[Kuciwalker]

Your pathetic attempts to keep equating a legal question to that of morality is exceptionally moronic.

There is no legal question, dufus. From my first post I have fully granted your contention that the act was, in fact, illegal. The fact that you have been running around condemning Israel for the act shows that you're the one who made it a question of morality.