At the point of whether or not he would be copying someone else's wine... Arrrgh, it turns into a mind-boggling headache. Then we get into whether god helped man make wine or if god let man make wine, and other things that are sometimes considered undevine (pro and anti abortionists, along with Deists have an argument here), considering that public drunkeness is a sin in the bible, which is somewhat caused by wine. Oh, and just for the record, I wasn't serious about the "Jesus Wine". I was actually hoping to make some laughs with that comedic statement. I'm sure it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. I'm sure that they were just so amazed by the fact that he changed it, that they didn't pay attention to the taste. BTW, making wine that doesn't taste like crap was actually considered an art back then, and it took time to learn...

Also, copyright laws are pushed and maimed by the rights' holders because of the powerful corporations that hold them nowadays. For example, US copyright law allows for 75 years after death. So why isn't Mickey mouse in public domain? because Disney has so much money oozing out of their orfices, they just lobbied, and now it has been changed to ~120 years for the pime period for 1925 - 1965, but still did not renew any of the ones that went into public domain. The entire idea of copyright is just ball-breaking stupid sometimes. If shakespeare had a contract, I don't believe we'd ever have his works in public domain, because the company would sit there and keep pushing the date back.

Despite the whole copyright idea, if you read what the OP said, which is the only reason why this argument really stands, it says that you are stealing profits from the developer when you reproduce their product from replication. In the same sense, I'm sure the local winery would have liked the money for those 3 barrels of wine. Wine is wine, and without Jesus's "miracle powers", they would have gone down to the winery and have bought some, in the same way piracy enables people to recreate others' works. So, according to superchunk, Jesus was "...reaching into the pocket of some hard working [person] and taking out his child's [lunch money]", and that he was "a thief who deserves [his] hands cut".

I do appreciate someone at least challenging my argument though, thanks.

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.

a better jesus miralce example would probably be feeding the 5000 because there was only a small amount of fish and bread bought but he made it into a lot.

Good point. I'm sure the folks at the bakery and the fish-store(?) were pissed on those days...

Dude, you know that Jesus could probably totally talk to Parrots too, and sailing w/ Cpt. Jesus would be great because it would always be smooth sailing. Sucks for Ninjas, cuz Jesus was a "pirate", lolz.

@ 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.

Yeah.  I'm not a pirate.  I'm just pointing out the ridiculious fallacies in your arguement.

It's not illegal to copy just about anything.

You ignored my art gallery thing... probably because you know it had you dead to rights. 

You can copy all the paintings you want and it's legal.

Hell its even legal to make copies of games if you do everything yourself.  That's why most EULA's prohibit backengineering.  Because it's not actually illegal if they don't and people could make all the WOW servers and stuff they want.

It's only illegal because it's easy.  It's that obvious. 

It's actually not illegal for me to copy corvina wine.  If i know their recipie and were to make it.  That would actually NOT BE ILLEGAL.

The only thing that would make it illegal would be if i sold it as Corvina wine.

note.  Sold.

Pepsi recently had the oppurtunity to buy the Coke secret formula.  Had they done so only the person who sold it would of been the criminal and Pepsi could of made all the "Pepsi Classic" or whatever they wanted to.

All they couldn't do is sell it as "Coca-cola." or "Coke."

They could make Coca-cola and give it away all they wanted for free and it wouldn't matter.  The only reason it would be illegal is the name. 

No, However, if you could make it as easily as you can pirate (out of virtually NOTHING), only small costs to yourself, then I'm sure after about 10 years of you doing it and giving it to your friends, there would be lawsuits (like piracy). If someone started making Coke out of water, and started  giving it away as "Ubercola", they would be sued for using the Coca-cola secret formula.

My point here wasn't in relating TV theft to software theft, but to the idea that piracy is somehow a right for 3rd world countries simply because they can't afford it. That should be apparent from my last sentance, "Just because I can't afford what I want doesn't make it right to take it."

Copying content is theft.

Companies like Coke and Pepsi have their formulas protected just like software. If Pepsi put out a drink that was identical to Coke, coke would sue them for copyright infringement.

Its the same with medicine. Tylenol and Walmart branded stuff are not identical. They share the same 'active ingredients' but walmart doesn't get sued because the actual formulas are different.

Finally, regardless of the actual legal mumbo jumbo, the simple definition on theft stands. You are acquiring content that you did not create (like your own drawing of the Mona Lisa) and you do not have consent to use, that fits the definition of theft defined by a pirate pages ago.

If you recreate the game with different names, as I have done for Battleship and other classic games early in school, then that is legal. But, to copy someone's content without consent is, by definition, theft.