Originally Posted by HeavyMetal4Ever
In Australia speeding is a crime. I should have looked into American law before I posed.
Well that depends on your point of view. Even if speeding is formally classified as a petty crime, labelling the offender as a criminal is overkill, much like calling copyright infringements "piracy". It's become acceptable to the point that offenders have started to take pride in the name. On the other hand labelling a sex offenders as such is a bit too eufemistic for my taste. (perhaps sex criminals sounded 1984-ish ?)
Note that there is not a single mention of either "felony" or "crime" in the Australian Road Rules 2008. The text on speeding specifically mentions "offence" not crime. Nor are these road rules part of Australian Criminal Law (it's probably administrative law)
- Offences and penalties
If a rule (or subrule) creates an offence, this is indicated by the words
‘Offence provision.’ Set out in the rule (or subrule). A person who
breaches the rule (or subrule) commits an offence.
The penalty for an offence is set by other laws of each jurisdiction.
Penalties can include a fine and, in some circumstances,
disqualification from driving.
So speeding makes you an offender not a criminal even if technically the offence constitutes petty crime. Most moving violations (incl speeding in any jursidiction) however are dealt with administratively, no judge, no jury, no criminal record.
No, I was referring to pride.
Do you mean this:
I don't post on forums about how I think i'm better than other people.
implying that you do
See you in hell sinner.
If I get there first i'll save you a seat.
In my book that constitutes three counts of pride, but you are repenting so I guess it's all good
I am not posting this to cause more trouble, only to clear up misunderstandings. If my ignorance has caused anyone offence I apologise.
Nor am I, in fact I don't think pride is sinful at all, however calling someone sinner is similar to calling someone thief, pirate or criminal (which is probably why Darin started this thread using the words borrowing and lending...) so I like to stick to the economic, philosophical and legal arguments using neutral terms. If you hadn't posted words like sinner and criminal I wouldn't have become involved in this thread.
Software and media companies use these terms to sway the argument in their favour as Daniel Defoe did three centuries ago. It tends to work against them as the public has romantic connotations with piracy, as we did in the 17hundreds. Whether it's the Matrix, Hackers or WarGames, even media companies themselves find profit in glamourising computer offences!
Originally Posted by Ibanez249
It's not a valid reason or excuse for doing it, it's just part of the REASON for it happening, not the justification .
I think I've already shown that comporate greed can be used as a valid justification for
the act of individual private software appropriation without remuneration
(how's that for a eufemism?)
under #1, #2 and #5 of my previous post:
1. the "Property is Theft" argument.
2. the disproportionate profit equals Racketeering/Usury argument.
5. piracy is allowable, as software companies already include a fee for this.
Whether or not any judge or jury should agree with me is obviously debatable.