On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:30:22 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

In terms of copyright, you've got to look at where the actual
violation is. What specific action was done to violate the
copyright of the item in question. That almost always means
some form of duplication or transmission.

You pride yourself on your ignorance.

And you pride yourself on your bombast.

More blind ignorance.

If I'm wrong, then spell it out. Otherwise - you're the one that's
ignorant.

You admitted to it yourself, dumbass.

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the violation
is the making available of a copy of the item. Parties who
access that copy for their own personal use are not violating
copyright law, but the point is that the copy they're accessing
should not exist in the first place.

Wrong again.

But you won't stick your neck out and explain why.

Have people had their asses sued off for no more than downloading (stealing)
music? Huh, dummy?

And everyone reading this is thinking the same thing. You're too much
of a coward to explain why I'm wrong. You just like to hear yourself
say it. Nice bluff. You call that an argument?

No, actually, everyone here knows you're too stupid to breathe on your own.

What kind of stupid-ass way is that to argue? Constantly saying "your
wrong" does not make for a coherent argument, dumb ass.

You're so wrong it's hard to know where to start. Stupid is that way,
sometimes.