Lets take a look at what you are saying.
1. It's wrong because it is legally wrong. Most people would consider this comment silly. Without getting into it (what a silly old topic), so you're saying that if it was legal (like in the Netherlands and many other countries soon) it would be ok?
If you want me to address this comment further I will.
2. It's wrong because you're being a freeloader and taking unfair advantage of someone else.
This is a part of your argument you could possibly expand on. There's the "freeloader" part which is really just saying you didn't pay for it. The term "freeloader" doesn't actually work when applied to things that don't run out. It works for food, supplies, candy, commodities in general. Physical items. IP is not physical. It can't "run out" (unless, i guess all copies are destroyed) The term "freeloader" suggests that a negative is happening to the non-freeloaders.
"taking an unfair advantage of someone else" would be like if someone stole your book when you weren't around, or recited your lines as if they were their own, discrediting you. The point is that something negative is happening to you. You are losing out in some way. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11540.cfm http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6828/Music+download+sales+soar+in+US http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html
(More links if you want them)
And then you express your take on my arguments as "teenager crap."
"they're rich so they won't notice" Could you tell me from where in my comments this was inferred?
"their art sucks so they get what they deserve" I guess this is your take on "If she's not as good as her sales suggest (like many pop stars) than she will (deservedly) make less cash." I don't know, I guess that is similar to what I said. Except you make it sound real vindictive and mean. And then you call it "senseless babble." Why is it babble? How would you have it? You want less talented people to make more money than talented people? (please explain why this is babble)
I feel I have taken the time to articulate my points coherently. I have addressed every issue you have brought up. (Am I missing something?)
I apologize if you were offended by my previous comments. (I can be rude)
I do not feel you have addressed my points.
You seem steadfast in thinking "downloading copyrighted material is wrong." I guessing you are probably surrounded by people with similar opinions?
yeah, they can have private shows OR they can publish it for the whole world to see.
If someone wants to get rich off of their creative work they're entitled to it.
You mean "entitled to attempt it." (big difference) If they're a young starting musician, I would suggest uploading their music for exposure.
Distribution used to be a seriously expensive ordeal. And the equipment... man was it expensive. I mean the record company was really important then. Not only did they have the enormous task of getting the music to the people, but they had to carefully select who to produce. They shaped the sound scape of the world for years.
But it doesn't have to be that way anymore. equipment is cheap and distribution free. It's a way better system than before. (obviously)
So... to the record companies I say "Thank you. Thank you for all those years of awesome music, electronics, vinyl, shiny cds, and awesome stereo sounds. Can't imagine what it would have been like without you. Thank you soo much. Now please, if you don't mind (ahem), could you get out of the way? We trying to listen to music here.
Ever sing "Happy Birthday"? Ever use a ladder? You know, if you have, you'd be "benefiting from someone else's work for free without their consent."
You don't really have an argument other than "it's wrong." Do you?
I mean, what about the starving artists? And their kids... don't forget the children. Oh, the children...
It's wrong I tell ya, just plain wrong, (My Mom told me so)
Almost everything we do involves us "benefiting from someone else's work for free without their consent."
What in Lord's name are you talking about?
It's about time we got rid of all the crap. All the garbage clogging up the airwaves, parasites and their "payola" Good riddance.
There is a reason why music is getting better.
If she wanted people to download her music for free, she would make her music available for download in her site.
Well I guess Björk would like to make money selling her songs. No one's stopping her.
That someone is already too rich to feel the hit of your piracy is no reason to pirate stuff.
It certainly is. (you're the one talking about "fair" and "right" ??) This doesn't mean that downloading IP created by people who aren't rich is "wrong."
That someone is too lousy that deserves to go bankrupt is no reason to pirate stuff either.
Saying that a person "deserves to go bankrupt" is like saying it is right that they go bankrupt. Or maybe "fair" that they go bankrupt. And why are they going bankrupt anyway? Can't they get a job like you or me?
This is just so wrong and against common sense I'm having a hard time believing you think that way.
Your ideas of what's fair and right clash harshly with common sense.
I mean really, you have been convinced, that sharing is bad.
And you really can't explain why.
would she prefer that someone not hear her sing, or, would she prefer that this person hear her sing without paying, what do you think she would say?
Would you ever consider going to a Björk show?
Downloading makes good music popular. This is important to keep in mind. Good artists are making more money because of downloading. Artists no one had heard of before.
I'm not that familiar with Björk, but if she is as good as her sales suggest, they shouldn't take too much of a hit from downloading. If she's real good, then so many new people have been exposed to her (from downloading), how could she not rake in the cash at shows. Plus, when an artist is good, people want the real deal (purchased) copy. They want to give, to (ahem), share.
If she's not as good as her sales suggest (like many pop stars) than she will (deservedly) make less cash. But more importantly, those people who push crappy music will make less cash, (they get most of the cash anyway) improving the quality of life for everyone else.
Do you think Björk likes that she can download music? That her siblings, cousins and friends back home can download music? That people all over the world who would never buy a Björk cd know the sound of her voice?
These arguments do not make file sharing right.
File sharing has alway been right.
It's strange to me that's it's 2008, and you can still find people who think it's wrong to download music, etc. (Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, copyrighted music, etc.) (Sorry forgot that, i mean without that it just wouldn't be wrong)
You people are sheep. Do you realize how many millions of (sleazy) marketing and advertising dollars it took to convince you this?
Really?? You mean you guilt trip yourself after downloading a song you heard on the radio??
Generally speaking, piracy (as opposed to counterfeiting) is a good thing. It's sharing.
Cry all you want about lost profits, they don't make sharing wrong. Interfering with sharing is wrong.
you're not really making sense.
This is more like counterfeiting than piracy.
They should really use a different word for it. (with no reference to pirates)
You obviously don't have a clue. Sure, your Columba palumbus "at times" gets it done, but it's hardly a replacement for the ultra-stable OpTow(v1.04) in a mission critical environment.
That's nice, you can get the news and updates at the same time. Wow. lets face it, dovecote users aren't serious "get things done" types. More like "it gets here when it gets here... check out them goats" types An 1860/300 w/64 flags??
what is this the dark ages? (and you talk about faster signaling architecture -what a laugh)
for the same reasons we shouldn't criticize Bill OReilly. (here me out)
They faked a news briefing and (most likely) though they could get away with it. Obviously, this means they're dumb as shit. Really. There's no other way to look at it. The people in charge obviously should not be the people in charge. But can we really grill someone for lacking intelligence? Who here doesn't have relatives with similar attributes? You can't blame someone for being dumb. (including Bill OReilly)
What we need to focus on is who puts these people in charge. (or gives them TV shows) The people who (or the mechanisms that) make these decisions are at fault. If they are humans (and don't also suffer from the same defects), their motives need to be seriously questioned, for they have caused (and have the potential to cause) much human suffering.
Slashdot Mirror
is that original??
funny
because your ignorance overflows like liquid chocolate.
The real bottleneck for hidef video playback would be the processor, as every new tv has vga inputs.
1080p vga looks great.
Lets take a look at what you are saying.
1. It's wrong because it is legally wrong.
Most people would consider this comment silly. Without getting into it (what a silly old topic), so you're saying that if it was legal (like in the Netherlands and many other countries soon) it would be ok?
If you want me to address this comment further I will.
2. It's wrong because you're being a freeloader and taking unfair advantage of someone else.
This is a part of your argument you could possibly expand on. There's the "freeloader" part which is really just saying you didn't pay for it. The term "freeloader" doesn't actually work when applied to things that don't run out. It works for food, supplies, candy, commodities in general. Physical items. IP is not physical. It can't "run out" (unless, i guess all copies are destroyed) The term "freeloader" suggests that a negative is happening to the non-freeloaders.
"taking an unfair advantage of someone else" would be like if someone stole your book when you weren't around, or recited your lines as if they were their own, discrediting you. The point is that something negative is happening to you. You are losing out in some way.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11540.cfm
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6828/Music+download+sales+soar+in+US
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html
(More links if you want them)
And then you express your take on my arguments as "teenager crap."
"they're rich so they won't notice" Could you tell me from where in my comments this was inferred?
"their art sucks so they get what they deserve" I guess this is your take on "If she's not as good as her sales suggest (like many pop stars) than she will (deservedly) make less cash." I don't know, I guess that is similar to what I said. Except you make it sound real vindictive and mean. And then you call it "senseless babble." Why is it babble? How would you have it? You want less talented people to make more money than talented people? (please explain why this is babble)
I feel I have taken the time to articulate my points coherently. I have addressed every issue you have brought up. (Am I missing something?)
I apologize if you were offended by my previous comments. (I can be rude)
I do not feel you have addressed my points.
You seem steadfast in thinking "downloading copyrighted material is wrong." I guessing you are probably surrounded by people with similar opinions?
Distribution used to be a seriously expensive ordeal. And the equipment... man was it expensive. I mean the record company was really important then. Not only did they have the enormous task of getting the music to the people, but they had to carefully select who to produce. They shaped the sound scape of the world for years.
But it doesn't have to be that way anymore. equipment is cheap and distribution free. It's a way better system than before. (obviously)
So... to the record companies I say "Thank you. Thank you for all those years of awesome music, electronics, vinyl, shiny cds, and awesome stereo sounds. Can't imagine what it would have been like without you. Thank you soo much. Now please, if you don't mind (ahem), could you get out of the way? We trying to listen to music here.
Ever sing "Happy Birthday"? Ever use a ladder? You know, if you have, you'd be "benefiting from someone else's work for free without their consent."
You don't really have an argument other than "it's wrong." Do you?
I mean, what about the starving artists? And their kids... don't forget the children. Oh, the children... It's wrong I tell ya, just plain wrong, (My Mom told me so)
Almost everything we do involves us "benefiting from someone else's work for free without their consent."
What in Lord's name are you talking about?
It's about time we got rid of all the crap. All the garbage clogging up the airwaves, parasites and their "payola" Good riddance.
There is a reason why music is getting better.
This doesn't mean that downloading IP created by people who aren't rich is "wrong."
Saying that a person "deserves to go bankrupt" is like saying it is right that they go bankrupt. Or maybe "fair" that they go bankrupt. And why are they going bankrupt anyway? Can't they get a job like you or me?
Your ideas of what's fair and right clash harshly with common sense.
I mean really, you have been convinced, that sharing is bad.
And you really can't explain why.
would she prefer that someone not hear her sing, or, would she prefer that this person hear her sing without paying, what do you think she would say?
Would you ever consider going to a Björk show?
Downloading makes good music popular. This is important to keep in mind. Good artists are making more money because of downloading. Artists no one had heard of before.
I'm not that familiar with Björk, but if she is as good as her sales suggest, they shouldn't take too much of a hit from downloading. If she's real good, then so many new people have been exposed to her (from downloading), how could she not rake in the cash at shows. Plus, when an artist is good, people want the real deal (purchased) copy. They want to give, to (ahem), share. If she's not as good as her sales suggest (like many pop stars) than she will (deservedly) make less cash. But more importantly, those people who push crappy music will make less cash, (they get most of the cash anyway) improving the quality of life for everyone else.
Do you think Björk likes that she can download music? That her siblings, cousins and friends back home can download music? That people all over the world who would never buy a Björk cd know the sound of her voice?
These arguments do not make file sharing right.
File sharing has alway been right.
of proof is on you. Getting "something for nothing" doesn't have any intrinsic "wrongness."
It's strange to me that's it's 2008, and you can still find people who think it's wrong to download music, etc. (Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, copyrighted music, etc.) (Sorry forgot that, i mean without that it just wouldn't be wrong)
You people are sheep. Do you realize how many millions of (sleazy) marketing and advertising dollars it took to convince you this?
Really?? You mean you guilt trip yourself after downloading a song you heard on the radio??
Generally speaking, piracy (as opposed to counterfeiting) is a good thing. It's sharing.
Cry all you want about lost profits, they don't make sharing wrong.
Interfering with sharing is wrong.
you're not really making sense.
This is more like counterfeiting than piracy.
They should really use a different word for it. (with no reference to pirates)
they might get a discount.
More like criminal.
It might be viewed as cheap, but that's because the first thing you see is the word GRUB.
You obviously don't have a clue. Sure, your Columba palumbus "at times" gets it done, but it's hardly a replacement for the ultra-stable OpTow(v1.04) in a mission critical environment.
That's nice, you can get the news and updates at the same time. Wow. lets face it, dovecote users aren't serious "get things done" types. More like "it gets here when it gets here... check out them goats" types
An 1860/300 w/64 flags??
what is this the dark ages? (and you talk about faster signaling architecture -what a laugh)
exactly! ha
best response ever.
I wonder how the republicans (in this forum) will respond.
Will they still deny the obvious?
I'm guessing they will, loyalty before logic.
not in this country (us), would be nice though.
that's friggin hilarious!
The rich get richer, the poor get even more poor. (I'm surprised by your reaction)
try wikipedia for starters,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Criticism_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_WTO
You tell me what's good about it, I'm all ears.
Yeah the WTO is just soo awesome.
for the same reasons we shouldn't criticize Bill OReilly. (here me out) They faked a news briefing and (most likely) though they could get away with it. Obviously, this means they're dumb as shit. Really. There's no other way to look at it. The people in charge obviously should not be the people in charge. But can we really grill someone for lacking intelligence? Who here doesn't have relatives with similar attributes? You can't blame someone for being dumb. (including Bill OReilly)
What we need to focus on is who puts these people in charge. (or gives them TV shows) The people who (or the mechanisms that) make these decisions are at fault. If they are humans (and don't also suffer from the same defects), their motives need to be seriously questioned, for they have caused (and have the potential to cause) much human suffering.