Hi, reality calls and just wants to let you know a few things:
Just because you believe people should get paid for something does not mean everyone should agree with you.
Quote: "Don't think you are magically entitled to have every piece of entertainment delivered to your eyeballs for free the minute its finished."
You view choice as magic? that explains a lot. What you think other people are entitled to is your opinion. Which you are entitled to, in my opinion.
If you believe that you should pay for something, pay for it. Please, however, piss off with the righteous bullcrap about how bad people are for not doing things your way.
I find it ironic that you are being speculative of other peoples motives in discrediting their statements. Your hypothesis would depend on their greed and self interest, not everyone chooses to play the money game even if they do have the capacity and often with good cause (wasn't greed a key factor in getting into this mess in the first place?).
That isn't to say you don't have a point about timing, but screaming hindsight 20/20 every time someone says they saw something coming is both redundant and exasperating.
I think perhaps people should be more wary of using right or wrong to describe breaking the law.
Whether something is right or wrong is a decision made by an individual. Laws may influence an individual's decision but to base decisions wholey on whether an action is lawful or not seems like admitting you are less capable of making a decision than those who influenced the writing of the law.
Having said that, even if you disagree with a law it will likely impact your decision through fear of the consequences should you break it.
In the case of copyright infringement for personal use, the chance of the law being upheld is very low and consequently its impact on peoples decisions may be a lot lower than most laws.
So, if you accept that breaking the law is not inherently wrong, then you can take whether it is stealing out of the equation entirely and base your decision on whether you want to support artists by buying their music.
It is my belief that laws should not be there to provide an monetary incentive for people to be creative and I find the idea of intellectual property an unnecessary construct that does more harm than good. As to whether I should be buying music to support artists.. To participate in a system you disagree with even with good intentions may keep that system going against your best interests.
Does this make me right or wrong? It becomes a matter of perspective. From the perspective of someone who shares my view I would be right, someone who opposes my view would consider me wrong.
Maybe the most relevant question is, who has more power to uphold their view? In sharing copyrighted material, the individual has the power. While sharing copyrighted material is unlawful, that law is not easily enforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, reality calls and just wants to let you know a few things:
Just because you believe people should get paid for something does not mean everyone should agree with you.
Quote: "Don't think you are magically entitled to have every piece of entertainment delivered to your eyeballs for free the minute its finished."
You view choice as magic? that explains a lot. What you think other people are entitled to is your opinion. Which you are entitled to, in my opinion.
If you believe that you should pay for something, pay for it. Please, however, piss off with the righteous bullcrap about how bad people are for not doing things your way.
I find it ironic that you are being speculative of other peoples motives in discrediting their statements. Your hypothesis would depend on their greed and self interest, not everyone chooses to play the money game even if they do have the capacity and often with good cause (wasn't greed a key factor in getting into this mess in the first place?).
That isn't to say you don't have a point about timing, but screaming hindsight 20/20 every time someone says they saw something coming is both redundant and exasperating.
I think perhaps people should be more wary of using right or wrong to describe breaking the law.
Whether something is right or wrong is a decision made by an individual. Laws may influence an individual's decision but to base decisions wholey on whether an action is lawful or not seems like admitting you are less capable of making a decision than those who influenced the writing of the law.
Having said that, even if you disagree with a law it will likely impact your decision through fear of the consequences should you break it.
In the case of copyright infringement for personal use, the chance of the law being upheld is very low and consequently its impact on peoples decisions may be a lot lower than most laws.
So, if you accept that breaking the law is not inherently wrong, then you can take whether it is stealing out of the equation entirely and base your decision on whether you want to support artists by buying their music.
It is my belief that laws should not be there to provide an monetary incentive for people to be creative and I find the idea of intellectual property an unnecessary construct that does more harm than good. As to whether I should be buying music to support artists.. To participate in a system you disagree with even with good intentions may keep that system going against your best interests.
Does this make me right or wrong? It becomes a matter of perspective. From the perspective of someone who shares my view I would be right, someone who opposes my view would consider me wrong.
Maybe the most relevant question is, who has more power to uphold their view? In sharing copyrighted material, the individual has the power. While sharing copyrighted material is unlawful, that law is not easily enforceable.