...if they spent less time in the vigalence of copyrights and instead spent more in improving quality and increasing quantity of titles available, they would still pull in the same profits and possibly more.
Doubtful. They'd only increase the desirability of their products, leading to more piracy. Do you think people only steal because it's not "good enough" to pay for? They steal because they want to, and because they can.
Imagine a parking lot filled with run-down, 15-year-old oldsmobiles, each one with a nice security system ("copy-protection"). Now imagine a parking lot filled with Prowlers, BMWs, Porches, Mercedes, etc. These have no alarms at all. Equate this to your "higher quality" production without all the mess of worrying about copy protection.
Take a guess which one will be the better target. Do you honestly think the "higher quality" and "lack of security" is going to be LESS attractive? Think again.
When I see comments such as yours, the interpretation is easy: "Make better products, and make it easier to rip off."
It's more than just technology that *COULD* be used the wrong way. It *IS* being used the wrong way. You don't have the copy-protection to blame - blame the pirates and the crackers and the thieves who've made it quite clear that copy-protection is necessary. Go beat up a software pirate. Direct your agression in the right direction. If nobody stole, million$ wouldn't have to be wasted ON copy-protection.
Surely you can't HONESTLY be trying to draw a connection between wanting to own and control what happens to something you created (music or a program, for instance) with SLAVERY. Are you so blind that you think it's the same issue? If you are, then shouldn't EVERYTHING be free? Cars. Houses. Meals. Clothes. Everything? If you're going to correlate "ownership of intellectual property" to "ownership of other human beings" then you have NO REASON to not also believe that "ownership of anything" is wrong.
Things may not be perfect. In your example situation, I suspect industries would either dissolve or adapt.
1) Dissolve - without viable income, nobody stays in business. Without the ability to regulate distribution, viable income shrinks or vanishes.
2) Adapt - come up with something brand new for people to protest. Maybe the music is free (can't avoid it, then) but the income is replaced by merchandising or advertisements (songs become ads), or something more obscure.
Ultimately, everybody must earn a living. Something paid for the computer you're using. I would guess that something pays for the house or apartment you call home. If "intellectual" property was unprotected and unprofitable, something would have to replace it to maintain the society we have now. You'd be forced to pay for something else -- or pay more for those things that are protected.
It's VERY easy to want everything for free, and argue against the right for a person or company to "own" and "control" the distribution of these things.
What's different is that YOU have the freedom to create and do what with you want with what you make. If you want to make a video playback system and make it publicly available for free, you can. The USA isn't a dictatorship or some mideaval kingdom. You aren't forced into submission because the "powers that be" are keeping you down. A free device would be embraced by "consumers" worldwide, I'm sure. Would content-providers fall in line behind it? Those without income considerations might, and that may be exactly what you're looking for (no big-budget hollywood flicks).
The rights of consumers are NOT being trampled as you claim. More and more, people tend to throw their hands up in the air, cry for a while, and scream "it's not far! Corporate America is the devil" but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. You purchased a single incarnation of the audio. In some industries (software, for instance), upgrading to a newer version sometimes entitles you to a rebate of some kind. It would be nice if the same was true about RECORDS/8TRACKS/TAPES/CD's, but it isn't. This isn't a violation of your rights. You may still own the 8-Track you originally purchased. You didn't purchase the right to make copies of it, or own the rights to the music itself.
I haven't seen any indication that the rights of consumers are being taken away, nor have I heard one convincing argument that might lead me to believe that I'm mistaken. Prices of CD's are too high? Don't buy them. Write letters. Do something. Your rights haven't been trampled. Not able to copy a DVD? I'd like to, myself. But, I bought the movie on DVD - not the rights to duplicate it into some other form better suited for me. My rights are intact.
You didn't extend your thoughts far enough to see the problem. When you loan your DVD to a friend, one copy of the DVD exists. You can't watch it while your friend has it. This only relates to "downloading" a movie at the base level.
Take it further though. If you loan your DVD to every other person in America, you still only have the one DVD in existence. There's a high chance that the other millions of us won't wait a few years for the disk to make its rounds to us. We'll buy it or rent it. By your thinking, this is the equivalent of you owning the DVD, and the rest of us making copies of it. If you truly can't see this difference, you're simply not trying.
I have a right to create something and expect people to pay for copies of it. You have taken away my right when you reproduce it and give it away. I have not taken away your rights if I place obstacles (the law, copy-protection, etc) between your copy and the duplicate copy. You purchased a product. You have not purchased the right to duplicate it or assert your own ownership of the content itself.
Honestly, I feel as though explaining my views on this is harder than convincing Dave Thomas to eat at McDonalds.
Do you have any reason to believe that without these industry as a source of income, much content WILL be produced? Sure, in the situation, that's fine, but you're restricting yourself to two situations:
1) Have a different day job and program/create in spare time. That goes pretty slow.
2) Be unemployed and simply devote your time to your passion. Raman noodles are really cheap these days, and if you get a tin can you might be able to panhandle in the right places.
The fact is, jobs pay you because they're being paid by WHAT you do. If there is an exception, I can't think of it. Because the software industry is the same, most programmers would be out of a job, seeking other sources of income, if their contribution to the company was no longer an asset (which would be the case if there wasn't money to make by selling programs). Or, everybody would have to hire on with a computer/hardware manufacturer where having "free" programs makes the most sense financially. All you will have done is shifted the expense of paying for software and added it to the expense of buying a computer. Somebody has to pay us to code. If not, we have to earn a living another way, leaving far less (if any) time to juggle in a programming "hobby."
I just wish more people would stop for a moment and think about the ramifications of what they crave - everything for nothing.
It isn't copyright law and copy-protection that should be blamed here. It's the NEED for these things -- those people who devote their efforts to ripping off the work of others - pirates and crackers and thieves. This is the reason I can't copy a DVD for my own use or for backup. Your blame is misplaced.
You said: I'm completely opposed to copy protection and access controls. They rip off consumers and the public.
Explain, please. How is this different -- or worse -- than those who produce the content being ripped off by unauthorized copies? Do you think your favorite movie star would keep making movies if this protection didn't exist? Suppose only 10 people went to see a new movie - or rented a new release - and simply made millions of copies to distribute freely to the rest of the world?Suppose this "right" (to copy) was encouraged and widespread and nothing was in place (or even attempted) to stop it.
Well, perhaps nobody needs new movies. There sure as hell wouldn't be many.
Or Playstation/N64 games - or computer software - or books - or music. Piracy happens in ALL these areas already. The ONLY reason these industries haven't collapsed is that having laws against it deters many even though the ability is there - the fear of punishment, or a sense of right and wrong, whatever you want to call it. Without protection of any kind - whether it be copyright laws or copy-protection - many of the things we enjoy today wouldn't exist in the form we enjoy them now.
It's unfortunate that I can't purchase a DVD and record the movies off on video so I can watch them upstairs while I'm on the computer -- or take them with me on business trips. It sure would be convenient -- and don't I deserve to be able to do this? Maybe. Maybe not. It sure would be nice. But, I understand WHY copy-protection and copyright laws MUST exist.
...the ownership of intellectual property is absolutely necessary.
I mean that the right TO own intellectual property is absolutely necessary, or to dictate how it is to be used or paid for (as with the GPL, correct) if it is freely available. I support the notion that people are entitled to own their creations. Make it free. Give it away. Close and charge for it. The right to choose this course is essential. I take exception to the growing opinion that "everything should be free because information belongs to the world." I certainly understand it (imagine the power held if a citizen were to create and own the first and only formula cure to AIDS). However, without protection, most of the conveniences we enjoy today would never have been invented, or would have been invented but never produced.
:::: Mike Snyder
Do you think the world would be a better place without copyrights, patents, and the protection of "intellectual property?" I don't. Sure, maybe the spark of genius would still ignite some great ideas, but who among us would have the resources to benefit from it? These concepts (which you call interference) are what drives the production and distribution of these things.
Suppose somebody invents a "teleporter." This is a great thing, and something with great possibilities. Now, with laws to protect ownership of the idea, it's worthwhile to build the thing and it could probably be integrated into our daily lives. Without protection, who's going to do it? Sure, perhaps the inventor would make the plans publicly available, but who has the resources and materials and expertise to build one - individually? Don't say that all industries (automotive, aircraft, travel, etc) could benefit from it -- their ideas aren't protected either, so there IS no industry.
All I'm saying - which is missed by most who simply want to ignore reality - is that the ownership of intellectual property is absolutely necessary. Do you like your job? Does it involve intellectual property of any kind? Do you think you'd be employed if your employer had no market - no way of protecting its investment? I wouldn't be. If the bottom dropped out of the school food service software industry tomorrow (for instance, if no "copyright" law existed and it was all available for free), I'd be scrambling for work the day after.
It's great to imagine a world in which everything is free, and we all trade pigs and sheep for blankets and vegetables. Those who continue to insist that intellectual property should NOT be protected are advocating the return to an earlier, simpler time - and I don't think many of us would enjoy that. It's easier to think about your needs - something for nothing - than it is to think about the ramifications of it.
Scumbags like me? How nice. What you REALLY meant to say was that the USA was founded so that jerks like you could find moral justification in stealing the hard work of others. Your "slave" comment, though, tags you as an obvious troll. :::: Mike Snyder
I know you couldn't care less, which is the basic mentality behind the "everything should be free" sentiment. You missed my point entirely. I don't have a job coding "open-source" software. In your ideal situation, such jobs would be scarce since only hardware manufacturers or companies with other related income seem to be interested in that -- or hobbyists, which doesn't pay the bills. :::: Mike Snyder
It's no surprise that people want something for nothing, or expect to benefit and/or profit from other people's sweat, tears, and hard work. As (if) this trend continues (as seems likely), I suspect many like myself will become disillusioned by software development in general, abandoning it as a career and seeking other sources of income. Honestly, over the past few months as I've received more and more hate-mail over having the nerve to "charge" to play a web game, that's exactly what I'm thinking. Everybody wants something for nothing. Nobody believes I have the right to charge for my work. Give up. Do something else.
I've been a programmer since I began it as a hobby in 1987. I love designing games, and it's one of the only things I *TRULY* enjoy. I feel I have every right to earn a living from it if I can, just as carpenters earn from building, lawyers earn from trials, and teachers earn from teaching. Would anybody say that a teacher should teach for free, because it's simply an exchange of information? The information is free, but the teacher's skill and time and services are not, right? How does an independent game designer get paid for creating games? By selling them. How does a recording artist get paid for writing music? By selling it.
If there was no protection for "intellectual property" - and no direct monetary compensation for doing such things - some still might. Hobbyists, I suppose, and those with something else to gain by it (for instance, IBM, as a means to increase the attractiveness of hardware they DO profit from). Those who program to earn a living (and that's most of us) would be doing something else. Just as a hobby? With bills and a girlfriend and numerous other responsibilities, that's unlikely.
If it happens, it happens. I'll be interested to see how the face of the "industry" might change as a result, with thousands of the most skilled programmers left without that as a viable source of income - for better, or for worse. :::: Mike Snyder
Maybe. But you're being short-sighted. I work as a programmer for a leading developer of school food service software. Not a HUGE business in the grand scheme of things, but it allows them to pay me a nice salary. I didn't sign an NDA or non-compete agreement here, although I have in the past. I understand the NEED from an employer's standpoint to have such a thing though. I now understand more or less everything about how the school food service sytem works - from how students pay for meals, what reports a school may need to generate, to how the government reimburses a school for meals given to students low-income families (free or reduced prices). I wasn't paid merely for helping design our software. I was paid to learn how this works, learn it well, and gain competence in understanding the needs of schools. It's an investment. While I should, from my standpoint, have the right to work for anybody I please, or go independent and develop my own competing system (and I could), you're not seeing both sides of the issue if you can't understand the reason behind NDA and non-compete agreements.
:::: Mike Snyder
Your car may be your property too, but should you have the right to infringe on OTHER people's rights with it -- for instance, by purposely causing wrecks or running down pedestrians?
If proprietary formats are going to "prevent" people from copyright their own creations (such as the example "birthday party" video), perhaps we need two technologies. The existing (or similar) DVD technology would be backed by "big business" and would thrive because that's where the box-office hits are. A "non-protected" technology would exist (such as the way VCR's exist now) that would allow independents and those who simply want to "give away" their stuff to do so, unrestricted. The two wouldn't be interchangeable.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Nobody has to "lose" their rights. :::: Mike Snyder
So in other words, you're against the idea of a free country altogether, believing that people SHOULDN'T have the right to own and profit from their creations (content)? If you answer no, explain why your previous comment wouldn't be in direct opposition. :::: Mike Snyder
You're a patriot? Give me a break. The USA was founded so people COULD own their creations, profit from them, give them away for free if they want, and live the "American Dream" if possible. You talk of your "rights" being trampled. You're encouraging the loss of rights for those who PRODUCE content. How is this better?
I have an idea for you. Defect. :::: Mike Snyder
Why do you believe this is an all or nothing thing? Those who want to have free sites will. Those who can afford to have free sites will. Those who do it as a hobby will. Those of us who can't, won't. If we charge and succeed, fine. If we charge and sink, fine. What seems to be the problem? :::: Mike Snyder
No Sir, I believe it's you won't are mistaken. I never said using a website was stealing. Did you make that up yourself, or did you simply misunderstand me? I said that taking something you haven't paid for -- which is by its nature NOT free (such a music which *hasn't* been released as an MP3 but is available on Napster, or the latest video game which is *supposed* to only be obtained by purchase) is stealing. I don't care that sites are free or continue to be free. What I take exception to is the notion that people don't have a right to charge for their services, such as online games, auction or financial sites. These are the people who want EVERYTHING to be free, instead of simply accepting that some sites may not be (whether or not they use the site). :::: Mike Snyder
Where exactly did we disagree? Sounds like we have the exact same viewpoint -- you're able to offer free content, I'm not. I never said all content should be charged for - only that those who believe *no* content should be charged for haven't lived in the real world. I believe our opinions are the same. :::: Mike Snyder
I wonder why on Earth we never hear from the vast majority who don't, though. Most people want it free, period. Taped it off TV? No need to buy it. Got the Warez version? EA can kiss my pucker, right? Napster has it? Screw Metallica.
Sure, some might have honest motives. So what. Most don't. Doesn't matter. Stealing is stealing. :::: Mike Snyder
This is how it should be -- people can pay, or not pay, for what they want. The bad news is that many good sites will have to charge or abandoned it altogether. Unfortunate, but necessary. There are sites I enjoy which are free -- sites I might not pay, but would miss if they were gone. Would I have the right to complain if they had to charge to keep the site open? I guess I would have the "right" to do so, but then I'd be like millions of other crybabies who have already spoken out that the "web should be free." No. If a site has to charge, they charge. If nobody pays, they're in no worse shape than they were when the site had no chance of revenue whatsoever.
What many people don't seem to realize is that there are jobs behind much of this -- people who earn a living just like they do -- employees who would be out of work. Sometimes I'm sickened thinking about how people only care about themselves these days -- holding a hand out waiting for a free ride -- but it doesn't surprise me. :::: Mike Snyder
....leaving you with amateur and hobbiest sites, or sites related to fees you already pay (online banking, for one). The fact is, if a company can't make money at least enough to recoup development costs, pay its bills and employee salaries, the company will remove the site. Isn't it much more mature to say "I'll try to find other free sites" and hope some rich company with bottomless pockets can continue to provide free content at a loss, than to say "Keep it free! I don't want to pay?" You find free sites, I'm willing to pay for quality. :::: Mike Snyder
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtful. They'd only increase the desirability of their products, leading to more piracy. Do you think people only steal because it's not "good enough" to pay for? They steal because they want to, and because they can.
Imagine a parking lot filled with run-down, 15-year-old oldsmobiles, each one with a nice security system ("copy-protection"). Now imagine a parking lot filled with Prowlers, BMWs, Porches, Mercedes, etc. These have no alarms at all. Equate this to your "higher quality" production without all the mess of worrying about copy protection.
Take a guess which one will be the better target. Do you honestly think the "higher quality" and "lack of security" is going to be LESS attractive? Think again.
When I see comments such as yours, the interpretation is easy: "Make better products, and make it easier to rip off."
My God. That's insane.
1) Dissolve - without viable income, nobody stays in business. Without the ability to regulate distribution, viable income shrinks or vanishes.
2) Adapt - come up with something brand new for people to protest. Maybe the music is free (can't avoid it, then) but the income is replaced by merchandising or advertisements (songs become ads), or something more obscure.
Ultimately, everybody must earn a living. Something paid for the computer you're using. I would guess that something pays for the house or apartment you call home. If "intellectual" property was unprotected and unprofitable, something would have to replace it to maintain the society we have now. You'd be forced to pay for something else -- or pay more for those things that are protected.
It's VERY easy to want everything for free, and argue against the right for a person or company to "own" and "control" the distribution of these things.
What's different is that YOU have the freedom to create and do what with you want with what you make. If you want to make a video playback system and make it publicly available for free, you can. The USA isn't a dictatorship or some mideaval kingdom. You aren't forced into submission because the "powers that be" are keeping you down. A free device would be embraced by "consumers" worldwide, I'm sure. Would content-providers fall in line behind it? Those without income considerations might, and that may be exactly what you're looking for (no big-budget hollywood flicks).
I haven't seen any indication that the rights of consumers are being taken away, nor have I heard one convincing argument that might lead me to believe that I'm mistaken. Prices of CD's are too high? Don't buy them. Write letters. Do something. Your rights haven't been trampled. Not able to copy a DVD? I'd like to, myself. But, I bought the movie on DVD - not the rights to duplicate it into some other form better suited for me. My rights are intact.
Take it further though. If you loan your DVD to every other person in America, you still only have the one DVD in existence. There's a high chance that the other millions of us won't wait a few years for the disk to make its rounds to us. We'll buy it or rent it. By your thinking, this is the equivalent of you owning the DVD, and the rest of us making copies of it. If you truly can't see this difference, you're simply not trying.
I have a right to create something and expect people to pay for copies of it. You have taken away my right when you reproduce it and give it away. I have not taken away your rights if I place obstacles (the law, copy-protection, etc) between your copy and the duplicate copy. You purchased a product. You have not purchased the right to duplicate it or assert your own ownership of the content itself.
Honestly, I feel as though explaining my views on this is harder than convincing Dave Thomas to eat at McDonalds.
I just wish more people would stop for a moment and think about the ramifications of what they crave - everything for nothing.
It isn't copyright law and copy-protection that should be blamed here. It's the NEED for these things -- those people who devote their efforts to ripping off the work of others - pirates and crackers and thieves. This is the reason I can't copy a DVD for my own use or for backup. Your blame is misplaced.
You said: I'm completely opposed to copy protection and access controls. They rip off consumers and the public.
Explain, please. How is this different -- or worse -- than those who produce the content being ripped off by unauthorized copies? Do you think your favorite movie star would keep making movies if this protection didn't exist? Suppose only 10 people went to see a new movie - or rented a new release - and simply made millions of copies to distribute freely to the rest of the world?Suppose this "right" (to copy) was encouraged and widespread and nothing was in place (or even attempted) to stop it.
Well, perhaps nobody needs new movies. There sure as hell wouldn't be many.
Or Playstation/N64 games - or computer software - or books - or music. Piracy happens in ALL these areas already. The ONLY reason these industries haven't collapsed is that having laws against it deters many even though the ability is there - the fear of punishment, or a sense of right and wrong, whatever you want to call it. Without protection of any kind - whether it be copyright laws or copy-protection - many of the things we enjoy today wouldn't exist in the form we enjoy them now.
It's unfortunate that I can't purchase a DVD and record the movies off on video so I can watch them upstairs while I'm on the computer -- or take them with me on business trips. It sure would be convenient -- and don't I deserve to be able to do this? Maybe. Maybe not. It sure would be nice. But, I understand WHY copy-protection and copyright laws MUST exist.
Suppose somebody invents a "teleporter." This is a great thing, and something with great possibilities. Now, with laws to protect ownership of the idea, it's worthwhile to build the thing and it could probably be integrated into our daily lives. Without protection, who's going to do it? Sure, perhaps the inventor would make the plans publicly available, but who has the resources and materials and expertise to build one - individually? Don't say that all industries (automotive, aircraft, travel, etc) could benefit from it -- their ideas aren't protected either, so there IS no industry.
All I'm saying - which is missed by most who simply want to ignore reality - is that the ownership of intellectual property is absolutely necessary. Do you like your job? Does it involve intellectual property of any kind? Do you think you'd be employed if your employer had no market - no way of protecting its investment? I wouldn't be. If the bottom dropped out of the school food service software industry tomorrow (for instance, if no "copyright" law existed and it was all available for free), I'd be scrambling for work the day after.
It's great to imagine a world in which everything is free, and we all trade pigs and sheep for blankets and vegetables. Those who continue to insist that intellectual property should NOT be protected are advocating the return to an earlier, simpler time - and I don't think many of us would enjoy that. It's easier to think about your needs - something for nothing - than it is to think about the ramifications of it.
Scumbags like me? How nice. What you REALLY meant to say was that the USA was founded so that jerks like you could find moral justification in stealing the hard work of others. Your "slave" comment, though, tags you as an obvious troll.
:::: Mike Snyder
I know you couldn't care less, which is the basic mentality behind the "everything should be free" sentiment. You missed my point entirely. I don't have a job coding "open-source" software. In your ideal situation, such jobs would be scarce since only hardware manufacturers or companies with other related income seem to be interested in that -- or hobbyists, which doesn't pay the bills.
:::: Mike Snyder
I've been a programmer since I began it as a hobby in 1987. I love designing games, and it's one of the only things I *TRULY* enjoy. I feel I have every right to earn a living from it if I can, just as carpenters earn from building, lawyers earn from trials, and teachers earn from teaching. Would anybody say that a teacher should teach for free, because it's simply an exchange of information? The information is free, but the teacher's skill and time and services are not, right? How does an independent game designer get paid for creating games? By selling them. How does a recording artist get paid for writing music? By selling it.
If there was no protection for "intellectual property" - and no direct monetary compensation for doing such things - some still might. Hobbyists, I suppose, and those with something else to gain by it (for instance, IBM, as a means to increase the attractiveness of hardware they DO profit from). Those who program to earn a living (and that's most of us) would be doing something else. Just as a hobby? With bills and a girlfriend and numerous other responsibilities, that's unlikely.
If it happens, it happens. I'll be interested to see how the face of the "industry" might change as a result, with thousands of the most skilled programmers left without that as a viable source of income - for better, or for worse.
:::: Mike Snyder
I posted a legitimate comment. You posted anonymous. I think your comments are best directed at yourself.
:::: Mike Snyder
Maybe. But you're being short-sighted. I work as a programmer for a leading developer of school food service software. Not a HUGE business in the grand scheme of things, but it allows them to pay me a nice salary. I didn't sign an NDA or non-compete agreement here, although I have in the past. I understand the NEED from an employer's standpoint to have such a thing though. I now understand more or less everything about how the school food service sytem works - from how students pay for meals, what reports a school may need to generate, to how the government reimburses a school for meals given to students low-income families (free or reduced prices). I wasn't paid merely for helping design our software. I was paid to learn how this works, learn it well, and gain competence in understanding the needs of schools. It's an investment. While I should, from my standpoint, have the right to work for anybody I please, or go independent and develop my own competing system (and I could), you're not seeing both sides of the issue if you can't understand the reason behind NDA and non-compete agreements.
:::: Mike Snyder
Your car may be your property too, but should you have the right to infringe on OTHER people's rights with it -- for instance, by purposely causing wrecks or running down pedestrians? If proprietary formats are going to "prevent" people from copyright their own creations (such as the example "birthday party" video), perhaps we need two technologies. The existing (or similar) DVD technology would be backed by "big business" and would thrive because that's where the box-office hits are. A "non-protected" technology would exist (such as the way VCR's exist now) that would allow independents and those who simply want to "give away" their stuff to do so, unrestricted. The two wouldn't be interchangeable. Why does it have to be one or the other? Nobody has to "lose" their rights.
:::: Mike Snyder
So in other words, you're against the idea of a free country altogether, believing that people SHOULDN'T have the right to own and profit from their creations (content)? If you answer no, explain why your previous comment wouldn't be in direct opposition.
:::: Mike Snyder
You're a patriot? Give me a break. The USA was founded so people COULD own their creations, profit from them, give them away for free if they want, and live the "American Dream" if possible. You talk of your "rights" being trampled. You're encouraging the loss of rights for those who PRODUCE content. How is this better? I have an idea for you. Defect.
:::: Mike Snyder
Why do you believe this is an all or nothing thing? Those who want to have free sites will. Those who can afford to have free sites will. Those who do it as a hobby will. Those of us who can't, won't. If we charge and succeed, fine. If we charge and sink, fine. What seems to be the problem?
:::: Mike Snyder
Too much to do, so much to get done - Should have stated that I "believe it's you who are mistaken."
:::: Mike Snyder
No Sir, I believe it's you won't are mistaken. I never said using a website was stealing. Did you make that up yourself, or did you simply misunderstand me? I said that taking something you haven't paid for -- which is by its nature NOT free (such a music which *hasn't* been released as an MP3 but is available on Napster, or the latest video game which is *supposed* to only be obtained by purchase) is stealing. I don't care that sites are free or continue to be free. What I take exception to is the notion that people don't have a right to charge for their services, such as online games, auction or financial sites. These are the people who want EVERYTHING to be free, instead of simply accepting that some sites may not be (whether or not they use the site).
:::: Mike Snyder
Where exactly did we disagree? Sounds like we have the exact same viewpoint -- you're able to offer free content, I'm not. I never said all content should be charged for - only that those who believe *no* content should be charged for haven't lived in the real world. I believe our opinions are the same.
:::: Mike Snyder
Sure, some might have honest motives. So what. Most don't. Doesn't matter. Stealing is stealing.
:::: Mike Snyder
What many people don't seem to realize is that there are jobs behind much of this -- people who earn a living just like they do -- employees who would be out of work. Sometimes I'm sickened thinking about how people only care about themselves these days -- holding a hand out waiting for a free ride -- but it doesn't surprise me.
:::: Mike Snyder
....leaving you with amateur and hobbiest sites, or sites related to fees you already pay (online banking, for one). The fact is, if a company can't make money at least enough to recoup development costs, pay its bills and employee salaries, the company will remove the site. Isn't it much more mature to say "I'll try to find other free sites" and hope some rich company with bottomless pockets can continue to provide free content at a loss, than to say "Keep it free! I don't want to pay?" You find free sites, I'm willing to pay for quality.
:::: Mike Snyder