old news, my stand on so called piracy is if I like the product I'm looking at, I'd pay for it, there are so many shitty ass Wii games out there that you have filter the bad ones out and then pay the right people.

I wonder in the instance for PC gaming, how much piracy is simply because there is no rental option. Numerous times there are PC games which I would like to play but can never justify buying because I would maybe only play through them once or maybe not even that. Its a terrible dillemma. Pay more than what I think a product is worth or pirate it and gain the enjoyment from it whilst knowing it hasn't cost them anything because I was never given the opportunity for a reasonable rental option. In any case thank god for the Steam sale, but in any case no harm no foul right?

Well not anymore.  That would been true before 1997.  It used to be to constitute copyright infringement that there had to be a motive of financial gain.  Aka the scenarios that have been discussed.  But under the No Electronic Theft Act, it amended the the idea to including copyright infringement without financial gain.  Most arguments used to be, is if they don't use it for monetary gain, then the company isn't losing anything.  But apparently that has been reversed to showing that there is a notion that something is being lost, and now there is virtually no legal difference.

Thus under current U.S. law, it is completely illegal to take and/or distribute something whether physical or digital when it is copyrighted, even if it isn't for the use of personal financial gain.  That means, under U.S. law, ALL FORMS of piracy that we know of today is completely illegal. 

It's actually still not defined as theft.  That was merely the name of the act.  The Healthcare bill made got rid of private student loans and increased the US student loans the government gives out.  That doesn't make student loans healthcare.

Additionally you may want to re-read your link.  It's 5 years in prison and up to $250,000 dollars for copying 1 work 10 tomes.

Well I was more deeming it to be considered theft based on the consequences of committing the act rather than the name itself.  But I more care about what ya'll have to say considering this, being it disregards everything ya'll have stated about the situation currently.  Piracy is illegal in America, and it comes with a hefty penalty.  And it associates the distribution of copyrighted material even without pursuit of financial gain a crime.  Obviously they consider something is being lost on the part of those who own the copyright.  I mean most of the defense of piracy is based on the exact opposite of this. 

I never said it wasn't illegal or that it didn't have penalties... neither did Khuurtra.

Also, uh... I think you need to re-read what you posted.

The 5 year and $2,500 fine ONLY applies if you copies or it has a value of $2,500 or more.  Within a 180 day span.

Also, once again... it's not on an equal measure punishment wise, either in stature or in actual execution when given out.

No but you did both argue incorrectly what the law stated.  Really, I shouldn't have to go look it up to see if you guys are correct.  Should be a rule that when summarizing things that aren't common knowledge, a legitimate source should be provided.  Otherwise, it allows for such misconceptions and falsehoods to spread.

And sorry I'll just take that part out.

And I never said that you guys didn't think it was illegal.  I'm just saying that the U.S. law systems sees that there is something lost when someone distributes copyrighted material, even when it isn't for monetary gain.  I'm saying that seeing as most think piracy is ok just for that reason, I'm rather curious what many responses are.

Except... we didn't.  Your still wrong.  Your argueing a point no one made.

You didn't read what was said correctly.  Khuutra said.

"Theft is defined as the removal of someonne else's goods or services without compensation - you on't actually remove anyone's goods or services, or prevent them from being compensated. That's the difference between pirating and walking out of a restaurant without paying, or going into a movie theater without paying: no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense, which is why there's a legal difference."

Nothing you posted refuted that... at all.  Once again, like I said... what is being counted as loss is "potential gain of sales or benefit" not a loss of limited resources without recompense.

You can actually read that in the actual link you posted.

Or... so other people don't have to bother.

(d) Victim impact statement.--

1. During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32 {c} of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Which actually is why this is a big thing... such impact sheets may start to be rejected due to the government saying the current research is bogus. 

Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times.  It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy.  Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says. 

And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant.  Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces.  The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal.  As you so graciously reposted:

"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"

But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST.  Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant.  The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something.  But I guess that is simply irrelevant.