Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frajic]

Hah hah no. I would spy on everyone to make sure they do not walk away with a car under their coat.

We don't take the cd, we just duplicate it. You can't duplicate a car, therefore your comparison have no value.

The point is not the car. It is the money. You are not giving them the money, thus it has the same impact to them as stealing a car.

Except when you steal a car, they lose a car and a possible sale. With piracy, it's only the latter.

I want a counter that states how many times this has been said.

[Phmcw]

The point is not the car. It is the money. You are not giving them the money, thus it has the same impact to them as stealing a car.

The fact that they make cars doesn't magically give them the right to have my money. The fact that I decide that paying for the car is the best way to get one does. If I could make a car for free, I would. Or if I could do it in a less expensive way for the same quality.

The whole point is an object is nothing like a song, it's the main topic of my pretty lengthy post. You respond by giving a stereotypical analogy between stealing a car and copying a song... 
And seriously, that's one lousy analogy : the car cost something to make, for each car. The copy of the song cost nothing. That's a pretty damn huge difference. The car is tangible, the song isn't. Another difference. There are no reason to make an analogy between the two. Not even the loss of sales : the sale of CD is only one of the many ways, and not at all the most lucrative for the artist, to get money thanks to its song.

[Bauglir]

The counter is now at eleventy billion and one.

Honestly, though, even though I've been making them, analogies between goods and intellectual property are going to fail because the results of a transaction are different (as always gets argued, and then conversation is assumed to be done for some reason). It really is closer to a service than a good, and it should be argued that way. The main difference there is that it comes with a particular methodology, without the protection of which your ability to perform the service is useless to you. So that doesn't really work, either.

Still, the point being made is that it's immoral to take something for nothing when effort was required to create what you're taking. You exchange money for the privilege of not having to bother creating it yourself, not for the actual object (unless you're purchasing raw materials or something, and even then you're paying for the privilege of not mining it yourself or whatever).

[Starver]

I want a counter that states how many times this has been said.

(Not sure where I sit on the spectrum of views on this aspect of IP handling, save that I obviously freely link to other people's images, but couldn't resist such a feedline.)

[Leafsnail]

I think in practical terms (leaving aside all moral arguments for now) creative industries will have to move more towards other methods of making money rather than fighting an endless, Luddite style battle against piracy.  The fact is that it's here, and no amount of oppressive laws will permanently fix the problem.

[Bauglir]

I think in practical terms (leaving aside all moral arguments for now) creative industries will have to move more towards other methods of making money rather than fighting an endless, Luddite style battle against piracy.  The fact is that it's here, and no amount of oppressive laws will permanently fix the problem.

These do seem to be true facts.

[Phmcw]

Still, the point being made is that it's immoral to take something for nothing when effort was required to create what you're taking. You exchange money for the privilege of not having to bother creating it yourself, not for the actual object (unless you're purchasing raw materials or something, and even then you're paying for the privilege of not mining it yourself or whatever).

Wow, the politician and businessmen have decided that morality is now the basis of our economic system? I missed that new.
I though we were in a capitalist system that only pay for something if it's absolutely obliged to.
Good to see the republicans getting all moral, the businessmen defending the poor or... or it's a poor excuse to use morality to rip us off. 

[Criptfeind]

So. Because other people do bad things that makes it right for you to do them?

[Phmcw]

So. Because other people do bad things that makes it right for you to do them?

No but the fact that the system doesn't work like that for anything else make me says that it's a scam.
"Fuck minimum wages, fuck medicare, fuck unions, but don't you dare copying Britney's songs. That would be amoral."
And you actually believe and support them?
Can't you see that you're being robbed? The song worth NOTHING. You're paying for wind. There are no reason to pay, the whole system is supposed to be amoral. There are no obligation to pay Chinese workers half way decently, there are no obligation to pay raw material a fair price to third world country, yet you expect me to make an exception and to allow the whole population to be spied on to be "moral and fair" to entretainment corporations?

If you want to make the system fair file sharing should be the last of your concerns.

[Bauglir]

We aren't talking about Republicans (of which I am not a member) or minimum wage, or medicare, or unions (all of which are good things to have around, in my opinion). Those things are irrelevant, because people (in this thread) are not defending the positions you're attacking in your post. We're advocating morality in one particular area, and many (such as myself) advocate similar morality in the areas you are talking about.

We're not the ones being inconsistent.

[Phmcw]

We aren't talking about Republicans (of which I am not a member) or minimum wage, or medicare, or unions (all of which are good things to have around, in my opinion). Those things are irrelevant, because people (in this thread) are not defending the positions you're attacking in your post. We're advocating morality in one particular area, and many (such as myself) advocate similar morality in the areas you are talking about.

We're not the ones being inconsistent.

Nope you're the one being tricked by those who are. The aim of the reform is not to be moral, and the reform is not badly done. Look into the obvious consequences of the law and you will have it's aims.
And these laws, with their violations of the presumption of innocence, their private take-down, their copyright trolls are not moral at all.

[Bauglir]

We aren't talking about Republicans (of which I am not a member) or minimum wage, or medicare, or unions (all of which are good things to have around, in my opinion). Those things are irrelevant, because people (in this thread) are not defending the positions you're attacking in your post. We're advocating morality in one particular area, and many (such as myself) advocate similar morality in the areas you are talking about.

We're not the ones being inconsistent.

Nope you're the one being tricked by those who are. The aim of the reform is not to be moral, and the reform is not badly done. Look into the obvious consequences of the law and you will have it's aims.

No, I understand the aim of the law. I am arguing that piracy is not good. The reform is irrelevant to that. The aims of those that created it are irrelevant to that. I've said that this law is ridiculous earlier in the thread, because it is. It's nothing more than greed camouflaged with a story about morality, but that principle that's being hijacked here isn't suddenly invalid because of that.

[Phmcw]

No, I understand the aim of the law. I am arguing that piracy is not good. The reform is irrelevant to that. The aims of those that created it are irrelevant to that. I've said that this law is ridiculous earlier in the thread, because it is. It's nothing more than greed camouflaged with a story about morality, but that principle that's being hijacked here isn't suddenly invalid because of that.

No, even that is not right. Piracy is what gave me knowledge of all band I listen to. Epica? Heard of on a forum. Black bomb A? Ditto. Rammstein? My sister gave me the copy of a CD. Tristania? wouldn't know without radio-blog.
Songs worth nothing, but merchandising, concert and support to these band still does. All they have to do is adapt and sell those. I even buy Cd, for the pleasure to have the album.
And if you want to know about them? You'll go to youtube. There is nothing amoral at getting something that is free. Making money out of it is their job. And there is a ton of ways.

[Gantolandon]

So. Because other people do bad things that makes it right for you to do them?

Actually it's how the society works. If enough people do bad things, it stops being considered bad anymore.

[Neonivek]

I should state that in many places there are ALREADY laws against letting people borrow your car or even use it.