noiseredux wrote:jfrost wrote:You have problems following your own reasoning, since you admitted he was right. Here:
noiseredux wrote:By that definition. Yes. You are right.
Hope this helps.
No I admitted that he was right by his PERSONAL definition. Not the law's definition. Which was summed up in the next sentence.
Yes, and the point is: if the sole purpose of the law is to reward those who create the games and punishes pirates but not the second handers, the law is inconsistent and hence wrong. Thus, cops behave according to falsehoods, as I said.
Someone might say, "Well, yeah, but the law is not
solely about rewarding creators. There are other factors involved." And that's fine, but if so, this point about rewarding the creator for the work should not be brought up in this discussion, since it weakens the overall argument (assuming it isn't fundamentally about paying creators and investors, that is).