LOL the Borg! (I am not laughing at you, I am just laughing!)
If you boil human nature down to the bare minimum, we all do things that benefit number one. We don't do things to make other people happy unless their happiness makes us happy -- does that make it a selfish act? Technically yes, and therefore, yeah, I guess we are selfish by nature. I think that is the price of being able to think.
Hmm... we don't NEED money. But it helps. Without money, I would need to learn how to slaughter animals, raise crops, build a house, generate electricity, etc. etc. With money, I choose a profession, and people pay me to do my job, and I pay other people to do their job. It makes life a lot easier in a way.
Is it everyone's goal to acquire things at the expense of others? Unfortunately people don't even think half the time (the reason these mp3 piracy articles keep getting posted.)
It's late, if any of the above is incoherent I apologize.
The artists had the option to not sign that contract, but they signed it. Therefore they agreed to the terms of the contract, and they are not getting ripped off in any way shape or form, unless the record company is violating that contract.
Right... and when the public takes copyright away from the record industry, they would also take it away from the artists, leaving them no financial incentive to create music, so they'd all go get "real" jobs, and they would not only destroy the music industry, they would destroy music.
It helps to think about consequences every now and then.
I don't think I'd call the idea of "belonging" selfish. I think it's perfectly reasonable that if one spends time constructing something that it ought to "belong" to him.
If I make a spear with which to hunt fish, it hardly seems reasonable that someone could just take it, leave me, and use it. That is selfishness (and laziness) on the part of the taker.
So money is just a generic way of taking someone's ability to make things and quantify it, so they can buy things that are useful without having to barter and all that crap.
But, at it's basest level, I would hardly call a notion of ownership selfish in nature, though people can certainly BE selfish.
The public tramples on the copyright priveleges of the record companies every day, so I hardly blame them.
I mean, for someone (the public) to violate someone else's (the record companies') rights, and then make a big deal about it comes back to bite them on the ass is pretty... well, stupid.
Surely most people would think that free entertainment is more beneficial to the human race than paid-for entertainment. The Romans even had that "Bread and Circuses" thing going on. But I don't think that should mean that any artistic creation instantly becomes everybody's property. Which is silly.
And, life only has meaning if the person living it gives it meaning...
If someone creates something, the art is his. Who the hell are you to take it, copy it, and give it to other people without his permission?
Your (idiotic) example is the same as piracy. You are imposing your will on somebody else.
Sharing is nice. If someone wants to share, they can.
However, people have the right to NOT share things if they don't want to.
If you have a problem with that, too bad. Go download freely-distributable music -- there is plenty of it at mp3.com. But you do not have the right to distribute someone's music if they don't want you to.
The rules aren't bad. If someone owns the copyright to something, they get to choose the terms of distribution, not anybody else. How is that a bad rule?
So, do copyrights even factor into your argument at all? You know, the rights that people have to decide how their material is distributed?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the person that owns the copyrights to decide the terms of how their material is distributed.
The fact that people are pirating their materials, and avoiding their distribution channels (avoiding payment) is hurting their business.
This has absolutely nothing to do with people downloading freely-distributed music. It has to do with people ripping the record companies off.
They're not trying to "control" you. It's nothing sinister -- they are trying to control their distribution channels, something that is perfectly within their rights.
Do we have to keep dragging the piracy issue out every five minutes? It's piracy, even if it is one song here, one song there, it's still damn illegal. It's simple, DON'T PIRATE. There is PLENTY of FREE, LEGALLY DOWNLOADABLE music (go to mp3.com for God's sake!) There is no excuse for it. COPYRIGHTS are RIGHTS. Therefore, the COPYRIGHT HOLDER gets to decide how copies are distributed, not anybody else. UGH.
OK very obviously somebody with a pro-Mozilla agenda modded this down. This is a very good point, and some fucking modder is trying to bury IE by burying facts. Could somebody with a fucking BRAIN please mod this up?
I just want to say "thanks a lot" to all of you assholes who have been stealing music, because thanks to you, I may now have to pay more money for my ISP, even though I've been buying my music legitimately all along.
If someone creates a tool, and you are using it, if they charge money for it you owe them the money, end of story.
If someone creates a competitive tool, you can use that, it's not wrong to do that.
To use the tool provided for a cost without paying the cost is immoral. Just because it doesn't translate DIRECTLY into "real" value does it make it any less wrong.
If you are going too fast, and someone cuts you off and you turn and lose control, the speed at which you may potentially hit something is increased. This may cause the sudden, sharp acceleration that kills you. The slower you are going, the less momentum you have, the less energy there is in the system, the less potential there is to be harmed/killed.
Speed increases the potential harm in any driving situation where someone can make a mistake, carelessly or not.
Why is it OK to steal at all? Why can't you just pay for things? Or lend them to people and then get them back?
I'm sick of people walking on other peoples' rights. Everyone doesn't like the gov't mandated stuff because it infringes on their rights, but they have no problem infringing on someone else's rights. Guess what, you do it, it gets done to you, and no fair bitching about it if you were doing the same.
When the majority become the criminals, what does that mean? That all people resort to crime when not properly controlled? Or does it means something is wrong with the current system, that tehre is something people do not agree with. The latter is closer to the truth and that is why The RIAA wants to keep this out of government hands, where just possibly the consumer, aka citizens, voices may be heard fairly.
How many people actually got up off their ass and made their voice heard? Almost nobody that is stealing mp3s has gone to the record companies, or written to their congressman, or done JACK SHIT to make their voice heard. So why is it that all of a sudden they are pirating everything?
Because it's free and it's easy and it's almost impossible to get caught.
Stealing is wrong -- I'm sorry, you can't get around that one. Maybe in the case of food, when you're broke and starving, but not having that precious mp3 is not going to kill you, no matter how much that song makes you tap your toes.
"But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant!", who says so? Most unbiased research I've read says otherwise. Be careful what rights you are willing to give up, simply becasue you buy into their crap and believe you are "morally" superior to the rest of us theives.
Most unbiased research? You mean a study? Where they interview people? "Hello, do you commit a federal crime?" WHO is going to say "YES" to that?? Why don't you conduct an informal survey of your friends and find out how many of them are stealing mp3s, warez, what have you. I bet most, if not all, are. Research, ha!
And I am morally superior to the rest of you -- I'm not willing to steal mp3s and warez just because I can. I pay for my CDs, videos, software, what have you, and if it's too much, I find a free alternative, end of story. It's not fair to deprive someone of a living just because it's easy to steal the things they create.
People that purchase licenses to software, mp3s, etc. are entitled to use them. People that don't, aren't. If people aren't willing to pay for things, then DRM is necessary, end of story. It's not like everybody is going to stop getting their free lunch and quit stealing because of some global awakening to morality. Almost everybody is a fucking thief, I don't blame these companies one bit.
Adobe is down revenue. You owe them for the copy. You are depriving the company of the cost of the software. You must purchase a license to use the software.
I wasn't modded as troll because I'm smart, and because I'm willing to speak out against the actions of a bunch of thieves, such as yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL the Borg! (I am not laughing at you, I am just laughing!)
If you boil human nature down to the bare minimum, we all do things that benefit number one. We don't do things to make other people happy unless their happiness makes us happy -- does that make it a selfish act? Technically yes, and therefore, yeah, I guess we are selfish by nature. I think that is the price of being able to think.
Hmm... we don't NEED money. But it helps. Without money, I would need to learn how to slaughter animals, raise crops, build a house, generate electricity, etc. etc. With money, I choose a profession, and people pay me to do my job, and I pay other people to do their job. It makes life a lot easier in a way.
Is it everyone's goal to acquire things at the expense of others? Unfortunately people don't even think half the time (the reason these mp3 piracy articles keep getting posted.)
It's late, if any of the above is incoherent I apologize.
The artists had the option to not sign that contract, but they signed it. Therefore they agreed to the terms of the contract, and they are not getting ripped off in any way shape or form, unless the record company is violating that contract.
Right... and when the public takes copyright away from the record industry, they would also take it away from the artists, leaving them no financial incentive to create music, so they'd all go get "real" jobs, and they would not only destroy the music industry, they would destroy music.
It helps to think about consequences every now and then.
I don't think I'd call the idea of "belonging" selfish. I think it's perfectly reasonable that if one spends time constructing something that it ought to "belong" to him.
If I make a spear with which to hunt fish, it hardly seems reasonable that someone could just take it, leave me, and use it. That is selfishness (and laziness) on the part of the taker.
So money is just a generic way of taking someone's ability to make things and quantify it, so they can buy things that are useful without having to barter and all that crap.
But, at it's basest level, I would hardly call a notion of ownership selfish in nature, though people can certainly BE selfish.
The public tramples on the copyright priveleges of the record companies every day, so I hardly blame them.
I mean, for someone (the public) to violate someone else's (the record companies') rights, and then make a big deal about it comes back to bite them on the ass is pretty... well, stupid.
Incorrect. The RIAA owns the copyright to the recording -- it is commissioned as a work-for-hire.
The artist owns the copyright to the song itself, the lyrics, chord progressions, arrangement, etc.
Surely most people would think that free entertainment is more beneficial to the human race than paid-for entertainment. The Romans even had that "Bread and Circuses" thing going on. But I don't think that should mean that any artistic creation instantly becomes everybody's property. Which is silly.
And, life only has meaning if the person living it gives it meaning...
So are you against intellectual property rights?
That makes no sense.
If someone creates something, the art is his. Who the hell are you to take it, copy it, and give it to other people without his permission?
Your (idiotic) example is the same as piracy. You are imposing your will on somebody else.
Sharing is nice. If someone wants to share, they can.
However, people have the right to NOT share things if they don't want to.
If you have a problem with that, too bad. Go download freely-distributable music -- there is plenty of it at mp3.com. But you do not have the right to distribute someone's music if they don't want you to.
The rules aren't bad. If someone owns the copyright to something, they get to choose the terms of distribution, not anybody else. How is that a bad rule?
So, do copyrights even factor into your argument at all? You know, the rights that people have to decide how their material is distributed?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the person that owns the copyrights to decide the terms of how their material is distributed.
The fact that people are pirating their materials, and avoiding their distribution channels (avoiding payment) is hurting their business.
This has absolutely nothing to do with people downloading freely-distributed music. It has to do with people ripping the record companies off.
They're not trying to "control" you. It's nothing sinister -- they are trying to control their distribution channels, something that is perfectly within their rights.
There are hundreds of thousands of artists out there who had the option to not sign that record company contract.
So, you are wrong.
So it's ok to violate someone's rights, but only if you only do it a little bit?
Do we have to keep dragging the piracy issue out every five minutes? It's piracy, even if it is one song here, one song there, it's still damn illegal. It's simple, DON'T PIRATE. There is PLENTY of FREE, LEGALLY DOWNLOADABLE music (go to mp3.com for God's sake!) There is no excuse for it. COPYRIGHTS are RIGHTS. Therefore, the COPYRIGHT HOLDER gets to decide how copies are distributed, not anybody else. UGH.
At least he's not making methamphetamines with his computer-controlled toilet.
It's harder than just clicking "No" when IE asks you if you want to install a piece of software.
It's not a problem with IE, it's a problem with people that click "Yes" to everything that pops up on their screen.
OK very obviously somebody with a pro-Mozilla agenda modded this down. This is a very good point, and some fucking modder is trying to bury IE by burying facts. Could somebody with a fucking BRAIN please mod this up?
I just want to say "thanks a lot" to all of you assholes who have been stealing music, because thanks to you, I may now have to pay more money for my ISP, even though I've been buying my music legitimately all along.
Thanks a lot.
If someone creates a tool, and you are using it, if they charge money for it you owe them the money, end of story.
If someone creates a competitive tool, you can use that, it's not wrong to do that.
To use the tool provided for a cost without paying the cost is immoral. Just because it doesn't translate DIRECTLY into "real" value does it make it any less wrong.
I have acknowledged the difference, but the fact that you are using something without paying for it is still wrong.
It's like going to Disneyland for the day and not paying the admission fee.
If you are going too fast, and someone cuts you off and you turn and lose control, the speed at which you may potentially hit something is increased. This may cause the sudden, sharp acceleration that kills you. The slower you are going, the less momentum you have, the less energy there is in the system, the less potential there is to be harmed/killed.
Speed increases the potential harm in any driving situation where someone can make a mistake, carelessly or not.
Why is it OK to steal at all? Why can't you just pay for things? Or lend them to people and then get them back?
I'm sick of people walking on other peoples' rights. Everyone doesn't like the gov't mandated stuff because it infringes on their rights, but they have no problem infringing on someone else's rights. Guess what, you do it, it gets done to you, and no fair bitching about it if you were doing the same.
When the majority become the criminals, what does that mean? That all people resort to crime when not properly controlled? Or does it means something is wrong with the current system, that tehre is something people do not agree with. The latter is closer to the truth and that is why The RIAA wants to keep this out of government hands, where just possibly the consumer, aka citizens, voices may be heard fairly.
How many people actually got up off their ass and made their voice heard? Almost nobody that is stealing mp3s has gone to the record companies, or written to their congressman, or done JACK SHIT to make their voice heard. So why is it that all of a sudden they are pirating everything?
Because it's free and it's easy and it's almost impossible to get caught.
Stealing is wrong -- I'm sorry, you can't get around that one. Maybe in the case of food, when you're broke and starving, but not having that precious mp3 is not going to kill you, no matter how much that song makes you tap your toes.
"But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant!", who says so? Most unbiased research I've read says otherwise. Be careful what rights you are willing to give up, simply becasue you buy into their crap and believe you are "morally" superior to the rest of us theives.
Most unbiased research? You mean a study? Where they interview people? "Hello, do you commit a federal crime?" WHO is going to say "YES" to that?? Why don't you conduct an informal survey of your friends and find out how many of them are stealing mp3s, warez, what have you. I bet most, if not all, are. Research, ha!
And I am morally superior to the rest of you -- I'm not willing to steal mp3s and warez just because I can. I pay for my CDs, videos, software, what have you, and if it's too much, I find a free alternative, end of story. It's not fair to deprive someone of a living just because it's easy to steal the things they create.
People that purchase licenses to software, mp3s, etc. are entitled to use them. People that don't, aren't. If people aren't willing to pay for things, then DRM is necessary, end of story. It's not like everybody is going to stop getting their free lunch and quit stealing because of some global awakening to morality. Almost everybody is a fucking thief, I don't blame these companies one bit.
Adobe is down revenue. You owe them for the copy. You are depriving the company of the cost of the software. You must purchase a license to use the software.
I wasn't modded as troll because I'm smart, and because I'm willing to speak out against the actions of a bunch of thieves, such as yourself.