Forums General Discussion Questions about legality

Ok, I am very confused. I purchased MIRC only to see on the internet that this type of sharware is illegal. I know that MIRC is not illegal but what is done inside is.... Is this information true? From what I am reading it says that you have to have an orgiginal cdg in order to use it... I am very confused and would appreciate feedback.

mIRC is not illegal in any way, shape, or form. mIRC can be used to do illegal things, but so can Internet Explorer. If you're talking about sharing copyrighted materials then yes, that is illegal in almost all countries, but you'd need to be living under a rock not to know that by now.

You should note that it's incredibly bad form to question the legality of mIRC (or any other business/service) without providing any sources whatsoever. See also: FUD

Okay then you should show us your source. When you see 1 party that says mIRC is illegal and another party that says mIRC isn't, like science, you would believe in the stronger evidence. And by not telling us your source, well then, we can say whatever we want and that's no weight for you to believe us (just like they could say what they want too). So what's the website or place you read that it's illegal?




Okay this might contradict asking, if you already knew the answer.



Okay so this contradicts that you aren't confused. So now you *are* confused since you had said you know that mIRC is not illegal.



Well I can say to you that mIRC isn't illegal in any way. But I don't have any good reasons to back my statement. Nor do I have any to convince you that I am right.

-Neal.

Anything can be used for something illegal. Cars can be used as getaway cars in bank robberies, kitchen knives can be used as murder weapons, it doesn't make them illegal.

keep in mind there are hundreds of other IRC clients with filesharing abilities.. are they also not illegal? What about usenet clients? The abuse of a protocol does not automatically make the software that is used to abuse it illegal, especially not when it is not condoned by the author or community.. this is the opposite of bittorrent, for instance, where the author might not agree, but the community certainly thrives off of illegal filesharing (thepiratebay and all the previous sites that have been shutdown).

There is actually a lot of IRC activity that has nothing to do with filesharing-- and if you haven't yet seen any of it you should start looking around more.

nothing is illegal until you get caught

No - the crime exists the moment it has been committed. The fact that there is no video recording of a crime doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

Neal Conroy.

He's stating philosophy not fact. Wake up.

I was only talking about philosophy?



Rock: so you're saying what he did is legal because he hasn't gotten caught?

-Neal.

*sigh*

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

RoCk +10.

If you agree that nothing is illegal until you get caught, then you would agree that if you admitted to committing a crime, then you got caught, which made it illegal.

What if you admitted to committing a crime?

What if you lied about committing a crime?

The fact that someone murdered someone is still a crime regardless of whether the incident was recorded or not.

The fact that you can say whether you committed it or not has no weight from the objective truth of the incident. (Because you can lie about it.) But regardless of whether you lie about it happening or not, the objective truth does not diminish.

so if killer kills your gf/wife and you kill him in return,
you go to jail for life or deathrow.

in moral view you did the right thing.
in your precious crime law youre the only one guilty here
no matter what was the cause and you will suffer and/or die.

do you still like your precious crime "stand point" ?

Firstly, you're confusing morality with legality.

Secondly, you're confusing doing something in self-defence and doing something and not getting caught.

Thirdly, "nothing's illegal unless you get caught" is wrong. Just plain factually wrong. It's a pseudo-philisophical phrase that doesn't mean a thing.

That said, you're both idiots. None of the last half-dozen posts are remotely relevant to the thread and if you two would like to debate morality, ethics, and law with your knowledge gleaned from Law & Order re-runs and what you recall from reading some Aristotle in high school then please, please, do it in private messages so the rest of us don't have to suffer the embarrassment of seeing it.

ouch that hurts... not.

beside he mentioned crime not me.
killing is crime, stealing is crime, and all other "illegal" BS are crime so i replied with crime.


i know you from the old days so i will forgive you for this

Absolutely. However, you might get the minimum charge for murder or manslaughter or homicide.



Yes, we know you can murder someone on death row, and still be charged with murder.

The flip side that you may have a hard time understanding is - the person you murdered that murdered someone, would still be charged for murder. The thing is, he is dead. So it *seems* that such a person was better off not because he didn't get charged for murder that he is dead, but that he is dead (so didn't get charged). Similarly, it may be unfair if he came back to life. But if he did - then he would get charged with murder.

Neal Conroy.

This is the most pointless discussion I've ever seen in my life.

Please oh please quote every line I type and reply to it with a paragraph of useless philosophical crap.

Even this one.

Go.

Stupid hijacked thread.

There seems to be a pattern of certain people hijacking threads and them deteriorating into the most ridiculous and irrelevant conversations. Each reply is dissected into inane quote-by-quote arguments which serve no purpose other than to get another reply, which in turn is again inappropriately and intelligibly analysed.

Please stop it, or don't post here, it's now got boring.

Regards,