Actually, if you convince people not to buy a product, and the information you used to convince them was false, you are liable for damages.
People have mentioned that too. However, this still doesn't account for people warning others of legitimately bad products. Or competition between businesses.
What you're saying is that because it is easy to copy, it's right?
I'm saying that because it doesn't cause anyone harm, it's a neutral action, neither good or bad.
They're just incorrect, and I'm trying to explain to you how they're incorrect.
Oddly enough, I'm trying to explain to you how you're incorrect as well. I wonder how far this well get us?
There you go again parroting the word "logic" like some magic talisman. Sad.
Yet two sentences before that, you used the word "incorrect" like some "magic talisman." Sad. Sorry, but this is an argument. Lots of statements such as "you're wrong," "that's illogical," and "that's stupid" will be repeatedly thrown around.
It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.
Actually, given their idiocy, this probably isn't too far off.
We just leave kids the fuck alone? They don't need to be 'protected' from pornography anymore than they need to be 'protected' from any other kind of media. It doesn't harm them. It may raise some questions, it may gross them out, but it's not a life-ruining situation that must be stopped at all cost. Protect them from things that can actually harm them, not media.
This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.
they have lost the possibility of gaining from a legitimate buyer of their work because someone has decided that they'd just download it without paying.
So, if you tell someone else who was going to buy a product not to buy it, you harm the artist because they would have had more money if you hadn't done that? Should that be illegal?
Should we make competition illegal, too? Maybe we should just have one giant monopoly for every item. Otherwise, legitimate businesses may be 'hurt' by competitors.
Losing future gain is not harm, as you remain unchanged.
They did not get any benefits they would have gotten from sale of the work (i.e, revenue, and prestige from increased sales numbers).
Loss of currently non-existent benefits is not harm.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it.
People use the names of logical fallacies as if they're some sort of argument in themselves. I am comparing one situation to another. That is not a straw man.
It IS irrefutable
That attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. You're wrong. My arguments are irrefutable, yours are instantly wrong.
what's up for debate is HOW MUCH harm is being done.
Yes, it is. I think zero harm is being done.
But I think you're a loser, because you stubbornly refuse to see other people's points, and stick to your narrow world-view.
There is a very good reason why I attempt to refrain from calling the other person stubborn or closed-minded during an argument. If you do so, you have to ask yourself: "Have I changed my mind either? Am I being just as stubborn as them?"
No one here has changed their beliefs. If anything, you've just reflected your statement upon yourself.
Sounds to me like you simply want a system of arbitrary laws where you can pick and choose the ones you like. Sorry--doesnt work that way, so yea, you WILL get called "wrong" when you go around claiming that the rules dont apply because you think they suck.
Except that I explain my reasoning. Do you disagree with the civil rights movement because they wanted to "pick and choose" what laws existed and what laws didn't? You fight laws that you feel are doing people an injustice, not all of them.
Its a pretty childish attitude, and all the more so because you make it sound like youre some political crusader for downloading the latest games in the name of "sticking it to the man".
Childish? You mean like criminalizing children who download a music album because it could 'deprive' someone of something that doesn't even exist in this point in time? You mean like introducing artificial scarcity?
I don't think fighting laws you think are unjust is childish, even if they're not as severe as others.
then I entered the real world, and grew up.
That is a terrible argument, I'm afraid. It doesn't really answer any question or contribute to the discussion. I guess African Americans should have just "grew up" and accepted their society. While this is not nearly as severe, unjust laws should not be tolerated, no matter how small they are.
Indeed... Yes, you can steal something they're supposed to have by depriving them of it.
Whether they're 'supposed' to have it or not is irrelevant. The point is that they don't have it, and they never have. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.
No, it does not depend which we're speaking of, resources are limited. Open any economics textbook.
Right. But, some resources are more abundant than others. Not all resources are dangerously scarce.
As do I.
I make no claims that the system will certainly work or fail, just that we should try. Imagine where we would be if people didn't take risks or try something new. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would ever improve.
It does exist. The $50 in the pirate's pocket they would have lost if they'd purchased the game is certainly real.
At no point did they ever own it. The money you are speaking of, the potential profit that the artist supposedly owns in the future of an alternate dimension, does not exist at this current point in time.
Overpopulation isn't a problem.
The more people there are, the more resources are consumed. There are a lot of people. Resources are being abused dangerously fast.
not overly abundant and enough to provide free for all.
It depends on the resource (the amount of it available). Everyone couldn't go around wearing diamonds, for instance. The problem of food scarcity could be somewhat solved through science (such as in vitro meat). That will likely happen anyway, not just in the system I'm proposing.
1, it's not highly inefficient.
It is if they're warring over pointless profit, killing animals for profit, and wasting resources.. for profit. Etcetera.
2, resources are not wasted or used up but only temporarily employed to serve a function.
Really? You don't think this is a waste? If they made goods that lasted forever, they wouldn't need to be replaced. However, that's not is profitable, so it is rarely done.
Everything has costs. Even if you are more than capable of doing something amazing, you are limited by the amount of money you have on many fronts.
There just isn't enough for everyone to have everything.
As I said, not of every resource. We aren't talking about building mansions made out of diamonds for everyone. We're talking about solving overpopulation and providing the basic necessities (the limiting factor there is food, but that can be solved with scientific advancement). To say that future technological advancements will never happen or are impossible is insane.
As illogical as you may think the rest of us are, you are no higher power to better make those choices for everyone else.
It's not a process meant to be done through the use of force. If and when the current system fails, they will look for alternatives. Hopefully before then, but probably not.
Sure, but bad ideas must be rejected and good ideas must be examined thoroughly and tested rigorously.
Thank you for considering it then. It can only be truly tested if it is tried. Perhaps a somewhat small-scale test.
You cannot even say it would be better if the output levels were the same. Removing energy from a once closed system can be dangerous.
Actually, in some places, we already are using geothermal energy. Yes, they do emit some pollution, but it's far better than fossil fuels.
How so? I was considering other options. I said "if you think that all game developers do not enjoy developing games." I never said that some people don't work for money, or wouldn't do so without money.
But would I do it for free?
That's nice, but again, not really a problem with pirates since they're not taking anything. If everyone stopped buying and pirating your product, the result would be the same.
This is true, and you also end up with games like minecraft and tremulous and nexiuz and saurbraten--which, while fun, isnt exactly on the same level as your average game made by a for-profit studio.
Subjective. Some people find simple games more fun. Not everyone likes million dollar budget games more than simple ones, for whatever reason.
Thats not really relevant to this conversation
Yes, it was. I was asking him if he would still be a game developer in a society without money--if he would continue doing what he loves for the love of it. It is relevant.
Its irresponsible to imply that its OK to undermine the current system (via freeloading) because the current one is flawed.
So if slavery was legal and it took a massive amount of change in the current system to make it illegal, it's irresponsible to undermine the system where slavery was legal? Even if it took a failure of the current system, I would still be all for it to get rid of such perceived injustice.
Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law.
It's a change in both.
Stole something of artificial value
It may have artificial worth, but I no longer have it. It's gone. I can never use it again. Not the case with piracy. I don't care about "exclusivity of distribution" because that's exactly what I want changed in the first place.
How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away?
They'll have to find a new way, because the pirate hasn't logically done any harm.
but im talking about the context of our current society
Understandable, but the problem is that people won't even admit that pirates aren't actually taking anything.
Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. If ending slavery, for instance, would require that all of society be changed, then I would agree with that change (I know it doesn't, but that is an example).
Because this is a capitilist society, not a commune nor anarchy, and there are RULES in our society.
That's nice, but I disagree with those rules. That is why I am voicing my disapproval.
Has society gone completely crazy?
It's always been crazy.
Why are people being cheered on for basically being leeches on the underbelly of society, demanding to be able to see whatever movie they want, play whatever game they want, and copy whatever they want, regardless of the rules our society has set up?
I'm merely disagreeing the artificial scarcity. Also, rules can be wrong.
Can you just come out and say that you honestly dont care about our society's laws, and that you intend to do whatever the hell you want? Cancel Reply Parent
If slavery was legal, would you agree with it? I disagree with laws that I feel are wrong.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.
But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.
Many things would change, but not necessarily everyone. It wouldn't "start over," it would change drastically.
Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer.
Of which there is none like the one I linked to.
And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society.
Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too. Perhaps not the same targeted portion of society, but society nonetheless. The laws are what I'm targeting right now, but just because they intertwine with society itself does not mean that the situations aren't similar.
No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society.
How does that have value? You still haven't explained how someone copying something harms them. Why should they have this 'right'?
In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society?
They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.
Substitute one flawed solution for another then.
Everything is flawed. Some things are just less flawed than others.
You are talking about changing the basis of our society.
Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.
Yes, I am talking about that. But I also am not claiming that it's the only solution.
I saw another comment that links to this. I make no claims that there is only one solution.
Preventing the seller of the benefits of the transaction while the receiver is allowed to utilized the benefits is wrong.
Ah, all this proves to me is that humans are more illogical than I suspected. You can't steal (as in take) something that someone doesn't have.
Sure, sounds great on paper like many things, but resources are not overly abundant. They are limited and would become more so after a short time in any society they describe. Quite quickly the people would decide to implement forced rationing.
Resources are not abundant? That depends on which ones you are speaking of.
It won't.
I wish I could see into the future like you can.
Do I really need to? No one else would even ask that I prove why it's illogical to expect everyone everywhere to be obligated to buy every product.
I don't expect them to. I was asking why you think it should be illegal to pirate something (and according to you, deprive the artist of potential profit) but not illegal to choose not to buy something (which has the same implications--it deprives the artist of potential profit).
I'm trying to be realistic as well.
Really?
I'm commenting on your "no harm" argument which is silly. Not you refusing to understand what "deprive" means.
Even if you're correct on the definition, that does not just my point that nothing in existence is being taken.
Things still have inherent value without the existence of money, those values just become more complicated to represent and somewhat ambiguous. Money is nothing more or less than a convenient representation of value, usually your time.
Not if the necessary resources are in abundance and overpopulation is quelled.
You should tell your environmentalist friends that. You know, the ones that like to claim the earth is overpopulated even though we're using less than 10% of it.
Apparently you don't understand the real consequences of overpopulation. The real consequence is not space, it's resources, food, and available shelter. This capitalistic society only worsens that through its inefficient use of all three of those.
Die from what?
If they don't drop the highly inefficient system that we have now, the resources remaining on this planet will continue to be wasted at an amazing rate until none are left, instead of used efficiently and using technology to its greatest potential.
We're generally better off now than we were before major changes else that change wouldn't have occurred and been kept.
If something can be improved further, it should be. If people had the mindset of "the current system is okay" a few hundred years ago, it would have stayed the same.
Don't forget feasibility. The "right" laughs at most of the "left's" ideas when it comes to clean energy because they generally only work 12 hours out of a 24 hour day, and the left gets scared of the right's ideas and scream "NIMBY!".
Solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy (probably the best one once we actually tap into its potential), etc. There are plenty of options. As for the environmentalists who disagree with everything, I'm not like them. Anything better than what we have now would suffice.
Sounds disgusting and unnatural.
Your taste buds don't override the importance of the life of another living being, sorry to say.
Also, from the article:
and a long-term goal is to grow fully developed muscle tissue.
There you have it. Someone just needs to put more work into this.
The rabbit was likely going to die for another reason, was already dead when the foot was removed
Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society.
I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed. It's happened in the past and it happened by people either using civil disobedience or protesting the laws that they wanted changed.
In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm.
Yes, and I disagree, so I voice my disapproval and say why I disagree.
You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?
'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.
It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.
No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.
Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement. Should they have just left because they didn't like it rather than try to have it changed? That would have changed nothing. That is just running away from the problem. You don't need to start a new society when another one has a problem. You try to change the current one, either through education or protest.
If slavery were legal, they would not make it right. I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.
You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.
I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.
That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system.
This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.
You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law.
The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.
I think you're the only one that would make that argument, illogically
I especially like how you state that it's illogical but you don't say why. Why? How is that not a loss of a potential sale or potential profit when piracy somehow is?
because you're trying to support your ideology.
The funny thing is, so are you. Isn't that the point of an argument?
Ok, so by that logic, that no harm has occurred, one could argue that stealing money from any of the hyper-rich billionaires should be legal because it doesn't hurt them.
No, you couldn't. Why? They already have the money, and in that scenario, you take it from them. You have directly stolen something that they previously had. It's gone. They no longer have it due to your actions of stealing it right now.
I would think that someone on Slashdot would know what copying is and how no one was deprived of physical property.
Having it in the first place is, as I've already noted, is a minor distinction.
No, it's not. As I said above, saying it's possible to steal things that only exist in the future of an alternate dimension where someones other self has acquired something is absolutely insane.
Otherwise, I want to see everyone in existence buy every product in existence, or else they'd be stealing potential profit and therefore harming artists and legitimate businesses.
Bribery would continue without money.
But not with a system where the majority have far more power than they do now. Bribery would be useless, then, if it still even existed.
Unless you can see into the future, I would not make such statements.
Wars will still be fought, even for profit.
Apparently you missed the part about having no money.
Land is real property and is not artificially scarce.
Humans don't need to fight over land, there's plenty. Sorry to say, but people wouldn't all be living in huge mansions and own large sections of land. The 'need' for that would be rooted out.
Government regulations can make it artificially scarce but it will have a very real finite quantity and thus value even without money and building new places to live over most of the oceans and then populating other planets.
Yeah, even with as many people as we have now, we are nowhere near close to running out of space.
Wars will also continue to be fought over racial superiority beliefs.
For a time, perhaps. Humans will evolve, or they will die.
The environment isn't treated as less important than money by most businesses.
Oil drilling, chemical dumping, etc. No, they might not say or think it directly, but they have absolutely no consideration for the future.
Our current pollution situations are in some cases actually solutions to worse pollution problems. A car is less polluting than a horse.
That's nice, but I mentioned nothing of getting rid of technology. We need to find (already done) and utilize clean, renewable energy sources. The problem right now, in many cases, is cost, and profit. It would be difficult to charge outrageous fees for something
Not like homeschooling is a better option, where a parent is free to substitute their own "facts," or leave out certain things completely, crippling the child when they attempt to do anything requiring that knowledge
This is simply not true in all cases. It might be true in some, but it's definitely true in the school system.
but the true danger of home schooling is the lack of socialization with people of differing backgrounds, leading to an insular world view that assumes everyone is the same, and an inability to cope with society at large.
If you think it is required to be locked in a building with other people your own age in order to socialize, then you are insane. It is perfectly possible to still do it. Again, this is not the fault of homeschooling, nor does it happen in all cases.
Besides that, some people simply don't like to socialize. Forcing them to isn't going to change that. Nor is it a required skill. When they have to socialize, they will.
Let me be clear: causing someone to lose a future gain IS harming them.
How? They've lost nothing. It is illogical to say that they've lost anything.
Consensus on this is clear with legal precedent in other contexts
Your quote you used below goes well here:
"You;re entitled to your own opinions, but you;re not entitled to your own facts."
What the majority think is irrelevant. What matters is what is correct.
You playing definitions games, and repeating "logical" and "true" every few sentences isn't going magically change the definition of the word, and the understanding people have of situations and contexts surrounding the concept.
Nor does you using the word "is" or pretending that it is a fact that harm is being done. Multiple times you have already declared yourself the victor, stating that it is irrefutable that harm is being done, like now.
Human beings strive for and anticipate better futures for themselves, whether it's long term goals, such as financial security, or even just planning to get the shotgun seat before a road trip.
I'm sure they do, but it is impossible to steal something that doesn't exist. Think about it. If they have lost absolutely nothing that they had before, how were they harmed? They were left unchanged.
or even makes a favourable result impossible, they HAVE harmed you
Wow. So, if an artist finds it unfavorable that some people are deciding not to buy their product, we should force everyone to buy their product because otherwise they won't make as much money and will be harmed? I'd say just about every artist in existence wants other people to buy their products.
They're distorting data on the popularity of the game, because they didn't buy it, meaning less sales numbers when publishers decide which games get sequels, and which games get scrapped.
Potential sales numbers are also affected by people who are allowed to tell others not to buy a product. If you wish to 'protect' artists, then perhaps you should protect them from freedom of speech.
But, as I've said many times, in order for it to actually harm them, they must lose something that they already have.
But there is scarcity present, the vision and ideas of the artist(s).
Scarcity of artists, not scarcity of digital media. Like it or not, there is a difference.
People are obviously downloading and enjoying the work of such artists because they lack the originality/talent/work ethic/time to produce such works.
I'm sorry, but how does someone downloading something mean that they lack any of those things? It says nothing about them other than they download media.
If the pirates don't actually enjoy the games, etc they download, why the hell are they doing it?
Why do people keep repeating this? I don't understand. I have never claimed that the media didn't have entertainment value. Not once.
And as they enjoy said works, hasn't/haven't the artist(s) created value for them, and don't they deserve something in return?
Perhaps they do. But, my point is not to argue against buying digital media, my point is to state that pirates do not actually harm the artist. The current system attempts to criminalize people who have logically done no harm to anyone (for reasons stated above).
If you've actually read any of the other comments, you'd see that I have already responded to arguments such as yours a multitude of times. You would have already had your answer and could have moved on to a different argument, but you chose not to do that.
Is it really so difficult to understand that I meant that if they want to see future releases, they should pay the artist? True, no harm was done to them either, but it's true that if they want to see future releases, they should play the game. Truth be told, I anticipated a reaction such as yours soon after I made those comments.
You're a troll
So many people here don't know what trolling actually is. Someone with a dissenting opinion is not a troll.
A good example of this is the fight the teachers union is going through now to avoid performance-based merit increases.
Does this mean performance of the students? If so, then this is just another excuse to try to artificially increase scores no matter the cost, even if it means 'cheating' and such. The entire school system is largely inefficient in the first place, even without people like her.
Will someone think of the children and close our schools!
Actually, you raise a good point. Please, someone think of the children. Seriously. It's sad that their education is in the hands of people who seek to not only indoctrinate them and teach them multitudes of useless information that they'll quickly forget since they don't use.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I seen worse than that when I was younger. Besides, those are the kinds of things that even an adult likely wouldn't want to see.
Actually, if you convince people not to buy a product, and the information you used to convince them was false, you are liable for damages.
People have mentioned that too. However, this still doesn't account for people warning others of legitimately bad products. Or competition between businesses.
You keep using strawman arguments, tsk tsk.
Comparisons are not straw man arguments.
What you're saying is that because it is easy to copy, it's right?
I'm saying that because it doesn't cause anyone harm, it's a neutral action, neither good or bad.
They're just incorrect, and I'm trying to explain to you how they're incorrect.
Oddly enough, I'm trying to explain to you how you're incorrect as well. I wonder how far this well get us?
There you go again parroting the word "logic" like some magic talisman. Sad.
Yet two sentences before that, you used the word "incorrect" like some "magic talisman." Sad. Sorry, but this is an argument. Lots of statements such as "you're wrong," "that's illogical," and "that's stupid" will be repeatedly thrown around.
It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.
Actually, given their idiocy, this probably isn't too far off.
We just leave kids the fuck alone? They don't need to be 'protected' from pornography anymore than they need to be 'protected' from any other kind of media. It doesn't harm them. It may raise some questions, it may gross them out, but it's not a life-ruining situation that must be stopped at all cost. Protect them from things that can actually harm them, not media.
This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.
they have lost the possibility of gaining from a legitimate buyer of their work because someone has decided that they'd just download it without paying.
So, if you tell someone else who was going to buy a product not to buy it, you harm the artist because they would have had more money if you hadn't done that? Should that be illegal?
Should we make competition illegal, too? Maybe we should just have one giant monopoly for every item. Otherwise, legitimate businesses may be 'hurt' by competitors.
Losing future gain is not harm, as you remain unchanged.
They did not get any benefits they would have gotten from sale of the work (i.e, revenue, and prestige from increased sales numbers).
Loss of currently non-existent benefits is not harm.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it.
People use the names of logical fallacies as if they're some sort of argument in themselves. I am comparing one situation to another. That is not a straw man.
It IS irrefutable
That attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. You're wrong. My arguments are irrefutable, yours are instantly wrong.
what's up for debate is HOW MUCH harm is being done.
Yes, it is. I think zero harm is being done.
But I think you're a loser, because you stubbornly refuse to see other people's points, and stick to your narrow world-view.
There is a very good reason why I attempt to refrain from calling the other person stubborn or closed-minded during an argument. If you do so, you have to ask yourself: "Have I changed my mind either? Am I being just as stubborn as them?"
No one here has changed their beliefs. If anything, you've just reflected your statement upon yourself.
Sounds to me like you simply want a system of arbitrary laws where you can pick and choose the ones you like. Sorry--doesnt work that way, so yea, you WILL get called "wrong" when you go around claiming that the rules dont apply because you think they suck.
Except that I explain my reasoning. Do you disagree with the civil rights movement because they wanted to "pick and choose" what laws existed and what laws didn't? You fight laws that you feel are doing people an injustice, not all of them.
Its a pretty childish attitude, and all the more so because you make it sound like youre some political crusader for downloading the latest games in the name of "sticking it to the man".
Childish? You mean like criminalizing children who download a music album because it could 'deprive' someone of something that doesn't even exist in this point in time? You mean like introducing artificial scarcity?
I don't think fighting laws you think are unjust is childish, even if they're not as severe as others.
then I entered the real world, and grew up.
That is a terrible argument, I'm afraid. It doesn't really answer any question or contribute to the discussion. I guess African Americans should have just "grew up" and accepted their society. While this is not nearly as severe, unjust laws should not be tolerated, no matter how small they are.
Indeed... Yes, you can steal something they're supposed to have by depriving them of it.
Whether they're 'supposed' to have it or not is irrelevant. The point is that they don't have it, and they never have. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.
No, it does not depend which we're speaking of, resources are limited. Open any economics textbook.
Right. But, some resources are more abundant than others. Not all resources are dangerously scarce.
As do I.
I make no claims that the system will certainly work or fail, just that we should try. Imagine where we would be if people didn't take risks or try something new. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would ever improve.
It does exist. The $50 in the pirate's pocket they would have lost if they'd purchased the game is certainly real.
At no point did they ever own it. The money you are speaking of, the potential profit that the artist supposedly owns in the future of an alternate dimension, does not exist at this current point in time.
Overpopulation isn't a problem.
The more people there are, the more resources are consumed. There are a lot of people. Resources are being abused dangerously fast.
not overly abundant and enough to provide free for all.
It depends on the resource (the amount of it available). Everyone couldn't go around wearing diamonds, for instance. The problem of food scarcity could be somewhat solved through science (such as in vitro meat). That will likely happen anyway, not just in the system I'm proposing.
1, it's not highly inefficient.
It is if they're warring over pointless profit, killing animals for profit, and wasting resources.. for profit. Etcetera.
2, resources are not wasted or used up but only temporarily employed to serve a function.
Really? You don't think this is a waste? If they made goods that lasted forever, they wouldn't need to be replaced. However, that's not is profitable, so it is rarely done.
Everything has costs. Even if you are more than capable of doing something amazing, you are limited by the amount of money you have on many fronts.
There just isn't enough for everyone to have everything.
As I said, not of every resource. We aren't talking about building mansions made out of diamonds for everyone. We're talking about solving overpopulation and providing the basic necessities (the limiting factor there is food, but that can be solved with scientific advancement). To say that future technological advancements will never happen or are impossible is insane.
As illogical as you may think the rest of us are, you are no higher power to better make those choices for everyone else.
It's not a process meant to be done through the use of force. If and when the current system fails, they will look for alternatives. Hopefully before then, but probably not.
Sure, but bad ideas must be rejected and good ideas must be examined thoroughly and tested rigorously.
Thank you for considering it then. It can only be truly tested if it is tried. Perhaps a somewhat small-scale test.
You cannot even say it would be better if the output levels were the same. Removing energy from a once closed system can be dangerous.
Actually, in some places, we already are using geothermal energy. Yes, they do emit some pollution, but it's far better than fossil fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Environmental_effects
That life wouldn't have existed if it weren't for taste buds
Youre creating a false dichotomy.
How so? I was considering other options. I said "if you think that all game developers do not enjoy developing games." I never said that some people don't work for money, or wouldn't do so without money.
But would I do it for free?
That's nice, but again, not really a problem with pirates since they're not taking anything. If everyone stopped buying and pirating your product, the result would be the same.
This is true, and you also end up with games like minecraft and tremulous and nexiuz and saurbraten--which, while fun, isnt exactly on the same level as your average game made by a for-profit studio.
Subjective. Some people find simple games more fun. Not everyone likes million dollar budget games more than simple ones, for whatever reason.
Thats not really relevant to this conversation
Yes, it was. I was asking him if he would still be a game developer in a society without money--if he would continue doing what he loves for the love of it. It is relevant.
Its irresponsible to imply that its OK to undermine the current system (via freeloading) because the current one is flawed.
So if slavery was legal and it took a massive amount of change in the current system to make it illegal, it's irresponsible to undermine the system where slavery was legal? Even if it took a failure of the current system, I would still be all for it to get rid of such perceived injustice.
Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law.
It's a change in both.
Stole something of artificial value
It may have artificial worth, but I no longer have it. It's gone. I can never use it again. Not the case with piracy. I don't care about "exclusivity of distribution" because that's exactly what I want changed in the first place.
How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away?
They'll have to find a new way, because the pirate hasn't logically done any harm.
but im talking about the context of our current society
Understandable, but the problem is that people won't even admit that pirates aren't actually taking anything.
Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. If ending slavery, for instance, would require that all of society be changed, then I would agree with that change (I know it doesn't, but that is an example).
Because this is a capitilist society, not a commune nor anarchy, and there are RULES in our society.
That's nice, but I disagree with those rules. That is why I am voicing my disapproval.
Has society gone completely crazy?
It's always been crazy.
Why are people being cheered on for basically being leeches on the underbelly of society, demanding to be able to see whatever movie they want, play whatever game they want, and copy whatever they want, regardless of the rules our society has set up?
I'm merely disagreeing the artificial scarcity. Also, rules can be wrong.
Can you just come out and say that you honestly dont care about our society's laws, and that you intend to do whatever the hell you want?
Cancel Reply Parent
If slavery was legal, would you agree with it? I disagree with laws that I feel are wrong.
How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?
I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.
But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.
Many things would change, but not necessarily everyone. It wouldn't "start over," it would change drastically.
Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer.
Of which there is none like the one I linked to.
And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society.
Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too. Perhaps not the same targeted portion of society, but society nonetheless. The laws are what I'm targeting right now, but just because they intertwine with society itself does not mean that the situations aren't similar.
No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society.
How does that have value? You still haven't explained how someone copying something harms them. Why should they have this 'right'?
In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society?
They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.
Substitute one flawed solution for another then.
Everything is flawed. Some things are just less flawed than others.
You are talking about changing the basis of our society.
Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.
Yes, I am talking about that. But I also am not claiming that it's the only solution.
I saw another comment that links to this. I make no claims that there is only one solution.
Preventing the seller of the benefits of the transaction while the receiver is allowed to utilized the benefits is wrong.
Ah, all this proves to me is that humans are more illogical than I suspected. You can't steal (as in take) something that someone doesn't have.
Sure, sounds great on paper like many things, but resources are not overly abundant. They are limited and would become more so after a short time in any society they describe. Quite quickly the people would decide to implement forced rationing.
Resources are not abundant? That depends on which ones you are speaking of.
It won't.
I wish I could see into the future like you can.
Do I really need to? No one else would even ask that I prove why it's illogical to expect everyone everywhere to be obligated to buy every product.
I don't expect them to. I was asking why you think it should be illegal to pirate something (and according to you, deprive the artist of potential profit) but not illegal to choose not to buy something (which has the same implications--it deprives the artist of potential profit).
I'm trying to be realistic as well.
Really?
I'm commenting on your "no harm" argument which is silly. Not you refusing to understand what "deprive" means.
Even if you're correct on the definition, that does not just my point that nothing in existence is being taken.
Things still have inherent value without the existence of money, those values just become more complicated to represent and somewhat ambiguous. Money is nothing more or less than a convenient representation of value, usually your time.
Not if the necessary resources are in abundance and overpopulation is quelled.
You should tell your environmentalist friends that. You know, the ones that like to claim the earth is overpopulated even though we're using less than 10% of it.
Apparently you don't understand the real consequences of overpopulation. The real consequence is not space, it's resources, food, and available shelter. This capitalistic society only worsens that through its inefficient use of all three of those.
Die from what?
If they don't drop the highly inefficient system that we have now, the resources remaining on this planet will continue to be wasted at an amazing rate until none are left, instead of used efficiently and using technology to its greatest potential.
We're generally better off now than we were before major changes else that change wouldn't have occurred and been kept.
If something can be improved further, it should be. If people had the mindset of "the current system is okay" a few hundred years ago, it would have stayed the same.
Don't forget feasibility. The "right" laughs at most of the "left's" ideas when it comes to clean energy because they generally only work 12 hours out of a 24 hour day, and the left gets scared of the right's ideas and scream "NIMBY!".
Solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy (probably the best one once we actually tap into its potential), etc. There are plenty of options. As for the environmentalists who disagree with everything, I'm not like them. Anything better than what we have now would suffice.
Sounds disgusting and unnatural.
Your taste buds don't override the importance of the life of another living being, sorry to say.
Also, from the article:
and a long-term goal is to grow fully developed muscle tissue.
There you have it. Someone just needs to put more work into this.
The rabbit was likely going to die for another reason, was already dead when the foot was removed
How does that justify ki
Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society.
I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed. It's happened in the past and it happened by people either using civil disobedience or protesting the laws that they wanted changed.
In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm.
Yes, and I disagree, so I voice my disapproval and say why I disagree.
You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.
Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.
But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.
What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?
'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.
It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.
And that's a 100% perfect system is it??
I don't know because it's never been tried before, but it doesn't need to be perfect.
No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.
Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement. Should they have just left because they didn't like it rather than try to have it changed? That would have changed nothing. That is just running away from the problem. You don't need to start a new society when another one has a problem. You try to change the current one, either through education or protest.
But not the swastika itself.
You say there is an 'injustice being done to pirates', well according to the laws of the society you live in that is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law
If slavery were legal, they would not make it right. I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.
You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.
I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.
So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?
This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.
That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system.
This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.
You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law.
The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.
You want to work from a different definition than the rest of society.
No, I want to work from the actual definition. How can you take away (deprive) someone of something that they do not even have?
Have you speculated what such a society without money would do?
http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq
Apparently, there is an idea after all.
They would invent an artificial currency.
Not if it worked properly.
I think you're the only one that would make that argument, illogically
I especially like how you state that it's illogical but you don't say why. Why? How is that not a loss of a potential sale or potential profit when piracy somehow is?
because you're trying to support your ideology.
The funny thing is, so are you. Isn't that the point of an argument?
Ok, so by that logic, that no harm has occurred, one could argue that stealing money from any of the hyper-rich billionaires should be legal because it doesn't hurt them.
No, you couldn't. Why? They already have the money, and in that scenario, you take it from them. You have directly stolen something that they previously had. It's gone. They no longer have it due to your actions of stealing it right now.
I would think that someone on Slashdot would know what copying is and how no one was deprived of physical property.
Having it in the first place is, as I've already noted, is a minor distinction.
No, it's not. As I said above, saying it's possible to steal things that only exist in the future of an alternate dimension where someones other self has acquired something is absolutely insane.
Otherwise, I want to see everyone in existence buy every product in existence, or else they'd be stealing potential profit and therefore harming artists and legitimate businesses.
Bribery would continue without money.
But not with a system where the majority have far more power than they do now. Bribery would be useless, then, if it still even existed.
Unless you can see into the future, I would not make such statements.
Wars will still be fought, even for profit.
Apparently you missed the part about having no money.
Land is real property and is not artificially scarce.
Humans don't need to fight over land, there's plenty. Sorry to say, but people wouldn't all be living in huge mansions and own large sections of land. The 'need' for that would be rooted out.
Government regulations can make it artificially scarce but it will have a very real finite quantity and thus value even without money and building new places to live over most of the oceans and then populating other planets.
Yeah, even with as many people as we have now, we are nowhere near close to running out of space.
Wars will also continue to be fought over racial superiority beliefs.
For a time, perhaps. Humans will evolve, or they will die.
The environment isn't treated as less important than money by most businesses.
Oil drilling, chemical dumping, etc. No, they might not say or think it directly, but they have absolutely no consideration for the future.
Our current pollution situations are in some cases actually solutions to worse pollution problems. A car is less polluting than a horse.
That's nice, but I mentioned nothing of getting rid of technology. We need to find (already done) and utilize clean, renewable energy sources. The problem right now, in many cases, is cost, and profit. It would be difficult to charge outrageous fees for something
You don't need to expose them to jerks to teach them to deal with jerks. That can be taught through actual teaching.
Not like homeschooling is a better option, where a parent is free to substitute their own "facts," or leave out certain things completely, crippling the child when they attempt to do anything requiring that knowledge
This is simply not true in all cases. It might be true in some, but it's definitely true in the school system.
but the true danger of home schooling is the lack of socialization with people of differing backgrounds, leading to an insular world view that assumes everyone is the same, and an inability to cope with society at large.
If you think it is required to be locked in a building with other people your own age in order to socialize, then you are insane. It is perfectly possible to still do it. Again, this is not the fault of homeschooling, nor does it happen in all cases.
Besides that, some people simply don't like to socialize. Forcing them to isn't going to change that. Nor is it a required skill. When they have to socialize, they will.
Let me be clear: causing someone to lose a future gain IS harming them.
How? They've lost nothing. It is illogical to say that they've lost anything.
Consensus on this is clear with legal precedent in other contexts
Your quote you used below goes well here:
"You;re entitled to your own opinions, but you;re not entitled to your own facts."
What the majority think is irrelevant. What matters is what is correct.
You playing definitions games, and repeating "logical" and "true" every few sentences isn't going magically change the definition of the word, and the understanding people have of situations and contexts surrounding the concept.
Nor does you using the word "is" or pretending that it is a fact that harm is being done. Multiple times you have already declared yourself the victor, stating that it is irrefutable that harm is being done, like now.
Human beings strive for and anticipate better futures for themselves, whether it's long term goals, such as financial security, or even just planning to get the shotgun seat before a road trip.
I'm sure they do, but it is impossible to steal something that doesn't exist. Think about it. If they have lost absolutely nothing that they had before, how were they harmed? They were left unchanged.
or even makes a favourable result impossible, they HAVE harmed you
Wow. So, if an artist finds it unfavorable that some people are deciding not to buy their product, we should force everyone to buy their product because otherwise they won't make as much money and will be harmed? I'd say just about every artist in existence wants other people to buy their products.
they should play the game.
That should be "they should pay for the media."
They're distorting data on the popularity of the game, because they didn't buy it, meaning less sales numbers when publishers decide which games get sequels, and which games get scrapped.
Potential sales numbers are also affected by people who are allowed to tell others not to buy a product. If you wish to 'protect' artists, then perhaps you should protect them from freedom of speech.
But, as I've said many times, in order for it to actually harm them, they must lose something that they already have.
But there is scarcity present, the vision and ideas of the artist(s).
Scarcity of artists, not scarcity of digital media. Like it or not, there is a difference.
People are obviously downloading and enjoying the work of such artists because they lack the originality/talent/work ethic/time to produce such works.
I'm sorry, but how does someone downloading something mean that they lack any of those things? It says nothing about them other than they download media.
If the pirates don't actually enjoy the games, etc they download, why the hell are they doing it?
Why do people keep repeating this? I don't understand. I have never claimed that the media didn't have entertainment value. Not once.
And as they enjoy said works, hasn't/haven't the artist(s) created value for them, and don't they deserve something in return?
Perhaps they do. But, my point is not to argue against buying digital media, my point is to state that pirates do not actually harm the artist. The current system attempts to criminalize people who have logically done no harm to anyone (for reasons stated above).
If you've actually read any of the other comments, you'd see that I have already responded to arguments such as yours a multitude of times. You would have already had your answer and could have moved on to a different argument, but you chose not to do that.
And yet in a previous post you said:
Is it really so difficult to understand that I meant that if they want to see future releases, they should pay the artist? True, no harm was done to them either, but it's true that if they want to see future releases, they should play the game. Truth be told, I anticipated a reaction such as yours soon after I made those comments.
You're a troll
So many people here don't know what trolling actually is. Someone with a dissenting opinion is not a troll.
Also, hypocrisy isn't an argument.
A good example of this is the fight the teachers union is going through now to avoid performance-based merit increases.
Does this mean performance of the students? If so, then this is just another excuse to try to artificially increase scores no matter the cost, even if it means 'cheating' and such. The entire school system is largely inefficient in the first place, even without people like her.
Will someone think of the children and close our schools!
Actually, you raise a good point. Please, someone think of the children. Seriously. It's sad that their education is in the hands of people who seek to not only indoctrinate them and teach them multitudes of useless information that they'll quickly forget since they don't use.
Think of their education!
The action itself is what is offensive, not the picture. Getting offended changes nothing. You're taking it to an extreme, however.