> "But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy." I address this in the next sentence. > "That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position

> "But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy." I address this in the next sentence. > "That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation." Sure, but that doesn't make the argument good. > "I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive." I don't disagree with this in a pragmatic sense, but it's just not a very good argument for why something is ethical or okay. You could make the same statement that stealing is a 'great equalizer' between the people and the 'corporate overlords'. The reason it's different for file sharing has to do with the underlying copyright issues and the law being bad. > "Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in." I wasn't talking to you or really that interested in replying to you, I was talking to the person I replied to because I thought they'd find my argument more persuasive. On an internet forum replying to others in threads is allowed. By linking to the other thread rather than commenting I was attempting to not hijack and just have the discussion related to that thread at the link instead of here.