Piracy not theft because its a copy..

[superchunk]

L.C.E.C. said:

Rath said:
Yeah I had the feeling that you were joking around with the Jesus thing, but I couldn't resist the bait when you said that nobody had refuted it =P

Oh, I was totally joking around with the Jesus-brand-wine.

However, I still think that by what some (outrageous) people think today (NOTE: People by superchunk's standard), that people are sooo greedy that Jesus would get the same hate that pirates get today.

Someone would try to sue and say that it was too similar to their brand of wine or something like that... The worst part is that since Anascape won against Nintendo, I think the other guy might win the suit... Which is why it will forever remain in my sig now as a quotation.

I'm sure if Jesus had come now instead of then, and he had come along someone in the desert, who needed a way out, and he made that person a car to leave with (out of the surrounding sand), generic or not, then I'm sure that between GM, Ford, Chrystler, Toyota, Honda, ect., that someone would get pissed and try to sue. My point is that we are able to make what about as recent as 50 years back would have been considered miraculous replication, and people seem to try to hate the people who do it.

@ the fictitious wine story and the one about rice krispy treats.

In both cases the are products that are general and widely used prior to being boxed/bottled for retail. Thus completely different than software content.

Now, if Jesus had placed a Corvina label on the side of the barrel, then yes he'd be a pirate. Guess that would solve the pirates vs ninjas arguement. :)

Well, I'm done with this thread. Its run its course. Pirates will never admit taking someones content without consent is theft simply because they have no fear of getting caught.