"Just the fact that you can say "the Church" and "Orrin Hatch" or "Utah" and everyone knows which religion you are talking about is interesting in the context of power. "
Actually, when folks say "The Church", with a capital C, the usually mean the Roman Catholic Church. That's what I thought, until I read down a ways.
"Your post was specifically about how other forms of copying may or may not deprive the artist of money (and whether that constitutes theft)"
No, my post was about how just because something deprives someone else of money doesn't make it theft.
"They all look and read like hypothetical alternatives to copying in a more abstract sense"
But I thought they were "shitty analogies"? Maybe that's because they weren't analogies at all. They were just hypothetical situations in which a merchant would be deprived of revenue, which is what I said. Please don't argue with me about what I meant. I know what I meant. I wrote the damn post. Yes, it's possible that in that giant brain of yours that all of your friends keep complimenting you on, a misunderstanding occurred. Instead of trying to clear it up, you just went ahead and flamed me. Then, when I explained that you misunderstood my post, you counter that I misunderstood my own post. Just accept your mistake, and learn from it, instead of trying to turn it around on me.
Indie labels don't offer the high-end producers, nice tour busses and brand-name headlining acts. Plus, they're not all that much better than major labels most of the time.
When artists get fed up with their label, instead of going to an indie, they often just start their own label up.
Artists are already doing that, and unless you live on a farm in Alaska, there's indie CDs at your local record shop or street corner. I'm not trying to get on your case, but have you bought any? If you're not buying them, and you just wrote that post, who do you think is?
Congratulations. I've seen some fucking bad analogies on Slashdot, but these are by far, the biggest stretches i've seen here. Well done, fine sir.
You're going to be pretty ashamed to find out that none of those were analogies to file sharing. They were merely examples of depriving a company of profit in ways which are totally ethical. Your post was amusing, though. *chuckle*
Depriving of profits. Just what I said. Lots of things can deprive you of profits. If another company independently creates a patentable idea at the same time you do, and gets the patent first, did they steal your idea? Do you steal theirs when you continue to produce your product, based on the now-patented idea? No, but they have deprived you of profit by patenting the idea first. When I read a book at Barnes and Noble, and leave without buying it, but the book stays on the shelves, have I stolen from the author? Is Barnes and Noble stealing from the author? No, they are just depriving the author of profit. If I make a competitive product, and it becomes successful, does it steal from other companies in the same market? No, but it does deprive them of profit.
Sad when merely the notion of a company not making money alone is considered stealing.
There is always a theft involved--theft of intellectual property, theft of profit, and so forth.
Depriving of profits is not the same as depriving of property. Sorry, man, I see where you're going with this one, but it's just not true. Yes, music pirates justify their actions to make themselves feel better, but they're still not stealing.
You end up with the game which should have cost your money.
The same could be said for building a bookshelf I should have bought. The same could be said for taking a picture of a scene that O'Keefe painted. What about taking a picture of a painting? Is that theft? Humming a tune instead of buying a CD? Listening to the radio? Your theft definition falls apart pretty quickly, holmes.
Shit, I've pirated before. I just have enough balls to admit it.
Why is it that people don't consider pirating stealing?
Because it's not. It's copyright infingement. It's still a crime, but it's not stealing. Theft deprives the original owner of the property use of said property.
They don't? Walmart.com is as functional as Amazon.com or just about any B&M retailer with an online presence.
As Amazon? Really? Check out their home electronics sections side-by-side, then make that claim. Anyway, presence is more than just a working website. Compare the online marketing strategies of the two companies.
Yes, and yes. What's your point?
That very few people that I know buy from Wal-Mart online.
and if they ever decide to focus on marketing their online presence, they'll be very successful.
That's not necessarily true. They haven't got kicked around online for this long just because they haven't focused. Their core audience and barnding strategy might not work online.
Yeah, he already knew that it was criminal to give porn to minors, but he asked why.
He got the point, which is why we're not seeing any replies from him anymore, so apparently my analogy answered his question. It's bad to give porn to little kids because it is. Any other answer is just a waste of my time, rehashing what all non-sociaopaths know to be true in their consience. Even asking the question makes you somewhat of a sicko. So, since it's obvious that he got his answer, why are you still asking questions? Do you seriously not know why it's bad to give porn to kids? Are you a pederast? Or are you just so desperate to get the last word that you will continue blabbering on, arguing a point that was not even yours in the first place? Again: get some control over yourself. You're falling apart here.
The point is that your little story was completely misplaced
A story about offering children porn was misplaced, attached to a story about offering children porn?
stereotyping old men who drool over children
Is that even possible? Sorry, pedophiles, I seem to have jumped to conclusions. I promise, I'll never stereotype you again! LOL
You made it sound like the porn was bad because it was offered to them by a dirty old man.
Maybe to you. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I used that story to analogize the situation, as I explained very clearly in the grandparent post. I could have used a nun, or Mr. Rogers, but the story called for a seedier character. Sorry you took issue with my casting decision. Are you a pornographer?
Or you tried to use the dirty old man to demonize porn.
Only in regards to access by minors! How can you demonize offering porn to little kids??!?
Bottom line is: What were you trying to say?
Re-read the grandparent post. I make great pains to explain that offering porn to minors via email is no different than offering it to them on the street. Unless you have something to add to that, please shut up now. The analogy was one sentence. Pull yourself together, man.
Maybe he would rape the children, but THANK GOD, at least they didn't see pornographic images... Is that what you are saying?
Is that what I said? Then there's your answer.
then you must basically be saying that "porn is criminal because you shouldn't offer porn to small children.
then you must basically be saying that "porn is criminal because you shouldn't offer porn to small children.
Did I say that, either? All I said was "If porn is illegal to offer to minors on the street, it should be illegal to offer to minors via e-mail". Not a circular argument, and I'm suprised you found it so hard to understand.
Offering porn to minors might be criminal, but you certainly did not explain why.
I don't have to explain why. It's not up to me to prove why offering porn to minors is illegal, because it already is. I am merely extending the illegality to email by analogy. If offering porn to minors is illegal, then doing so via email should also be illegal. If there's something special about the medium that invalidates my point, then feel free to explain, but I do not have to argue for/against porn itself.
You are just using fear mongering and stereotypes to promote your view, rather than bringing forth useful facts that answer the question.
What useful facts are necessary? What stereotypes am I promoting? And why shouldn't someone be afraid of pornographers targetting small children? The article came full of useful facts and statistics. Read the fucking thing if you need more data.
Sure, parents have responsibility to keep kids somewhat sheltered, but the rest of the population has some responsibility not to make the world such a shithole to raise kids in[...]
Indeed. Why is it so fashionable to make parents' jobs harder? Do people think we have it too easy or something?
Personally, I think we should make a new Internet: one that's so hard to use that businesspeople never figure it out and it's never a viable medium for selling things.
I'm with you to a point, but the internet got a lot more useful once business people figured it out. Online shopping, bill-paying, bank-balance-checking, etc. Not to mention that if we make the internet hard to use, how are kids going to use it? Still, it's nice to dream.
If I got an email from my father odds are good I'd miss it for the spam.
And that's a problem. One that should be solved, rather than adjust our idea of the internet to fit marketers' vision. Rather than submit to a sort of "white flight" from the ghetto of the 'net, we should take it back, and make it useful again.
I guess email marketers are going to have to do what other marketers of adult material are already legally required to: verify the age of their consumers. How? Who cares? Sorry if I don't shed a tear.
Everyone can benefit from computers in the classroom of course, but I don't see a need for them to be connected to the internet.
For a parent whose children live in another part of the country, the internet is an invaluable communication tool. What your saying amounts to not allowing a child to answer the phone until he/she is 18, because half your calls are some pervert heavy-breathing into the receiver. "You can use the phone when you're older, dear". Why not go after the pervert?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when VB was marketed at "hobbyists" and "business users"? What about COBOL? Crystal reports? HTML?
The bottom line is that certain concepts take experts to understand and certain solutions require expert execution.
Now, if the recording industry would let me bring in my old LP's and swap them for new CD's [...]
Use them as a receipt, maybe. Swap them? Never!
"Just the fact that you can say "the Church" and "Orrin Hatch" or "Utah" and everyone knows which religion you are talking about is interesting in the context of power. "
Actually, when folks say "The Church", with a capital C, the usually mean the Roman Catholic Church. That's what I thought, until I read down a ways.
"Your post was specifically about how other forms of copying may or may not deprive the artist of money (and whether that constitutes theft)"
No, my post was about how just because something deprives someone else of money doesn't make it theft.
"They all look and read like hypothetical alternatives to copying in a more abstract sense"
But I thought they were "shitty analogies"? Maybe that's because they weren't analogies at all. They were just hypothetical situations in which a merchant would be deprived of revenue, which is what I said. Please don't argue with me about what I meant. I know what I meant. I wrote the damn post. Yes, it's possible that in that giant brain of yours that all of your friends keep complimenting you on, a misunderstanding occurred. Instead of trying to clear it up, you just went ahead and flamed me. Then, when I explained that you misunderstood my post, you counter that I misunderstood my own post. Just accept your mistake, and learn from it, instead of trying to turn it around on me.
Indie labels don't offer the high-end producers, nice tour busses and brand-name headlining acts. Plus, they're not all that much better than major labels most of the time.
When artists get fed up with their label, instead of going to an indie, they often just start their own label up.
Artists are already doing that, and unless you live on a farm in Alaska, there's indie CDs at your local record shop or street corner. I'm not trying to get on your case, but have you bought any? If you're not buying them, and you just wrote that post, who do you think is?
Congratulations. I've seen some fucking bad analogies on Slashdot, but these are by far, the biggest stretches i've seen here. Well done, fine sir.
You're going to be pretty ashamed to find out that none of those were analogies to file sharing. They were merely examples of depriving a company of profit in ways which are totally ethical. Your post was amusing, though. *chuckle*
Depriving of profits. Just what I said. Lots of things can deprive you of profits. If another company independently creates a patentable idea at the same time you do, and gets the patent first, did they steal your idea? Do you steal theirs when you continue to produce your product, based on the now-patented idea? No, but they have deprived you of profit by patenting the idea first. When I read a book at Barnes and Noble, and leave without buying it, but the book stays on the shelves, have I stolen from the author? Is Barnes and Noble stealing from the author? No, they are just depriving the author of profit. If I make a competitive product, and it becomes successful, does it steal from other companies in the same market? No, but it does deprive them of profit.
Sad when merely the notion of a company not making money alone is considered stealing.
Intellectual property is not a service.
There is always a theft involved--theft of intellectual property, theft of profit, and so forth.
Depriving of profits is not the same as depriving of property. Sorry, man, I see where you're going with this one, but it's just not true. Yes, music pirates justify their actions to make themselves feel better, but they're still not stealing.
Download an album.
You know that $20 sitting in your wallet? It now belongs to the people who brought out that album you downloaded.
Says who? Them? So what?? The definition of stealing isn't "not giving someone money when you really ought to". It's depriving someone of property.
You end up with the game which should have cost your money.
The same could be said for building a bookshelf I should have bought. The same could be said for taking a picture of a scene that O'Keefe painted. What about taking a picture of a painting? Is that theft? Humming a tune instead of buying a CD? Listening to the radio? Your theft definition falls apart pretty quickly, holmes.
Shit, I've pirated before. I just have enough balls to admit it.
Cough, AC, cough.
Why is it that people don't consider pirating stealing?
Because it's not. It's copyright infingement. It's still a crime, but it's not stealing. Theft deprives the original owner of the property use of said property.
True, but on that same list, Sears was #5. I'd like to see a revenue comparison.
They don't? Walmart.com is as functional as Amazon.com or just about any B&M retailer with an online presence.
As Amazon? Really? Check out their home electronics sections side-by-side, then make that claim. Anyway, presence is more than just a working website. Compare the online marketing strategies of the two companies.
Yes, and yes. What's your point?
That very few people that I know buy from Wal-Mart online.
and if they ever decide to focus on marketing their online presence, they'll be very successful.
That's not necessarily true. They haven't got kicked around online for this long just because they haven't focused. Their core audience and barnding strategy might not work online.
how do you beat that kind of war chest?
With a reasonable online presence, which Wal-Mart doesn't have. With an established internet brand, which Wal-Mart doesn't have.
Every buy anything from Wal-Mart? OK, Ever buy anything from Wal-Mart online?
Yeah, he already knew that it was criminal to give porn to minors, but he asked why.
He got the point, which is why we're not seeing any replies from him anymore, so apparently my analogy answered his question. It's bad to give porn to little kids because it is. Any other answer is just a waste of my time, rehashing what all non-sociaopaths know to be true in their consience. Even asking the question makes you somewhat of a sicko. So, since it's obvious that he got his answer, why are you still asking questions? Do you seriously not know why it's bad to give porn to kids? Are you a pederast? Or are you just so desperate to get the last word that you will continue blabbering on, arguing a point that was not even yours in the first place? Again: get some control over yourself. You're falling apart here.
The point is that your little story was completely misplaced
A story about offering children porn was misplaced, attached to a story about offering children porn?
stereotyping old men who drool over children
Is that even possible? Sorry, pedophiles, I seem to have jumped to conclusions. I promise, I'll never stereotype you again! LOL
You made it sound like the porn was bad because it was offered to them by a dirty old man.
Maybe to you. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I used that story to analogize the situation, as I explained very clearly in the grandparent post. I could have used a nun, or Mr. Rogers, but the story called for a seedier character. Sorry you took issue with my casting decision. Are you a pornographer?
Or you tried to use the dirty old man to demonize porn.
Only in regards to access by minors! How can you demonize offering porn to little kids??!?
Bottom line is: What were you trying to say?
Re-read the grandparent post. I make great pains to explain that offering porn to minors via email is no different than offering it to them on the street. Unless you have something to add to that, please shut up now. The analogy was one sentence. Pull yourself together, man.
Maybe he would rape the children, but THANK GOD, at least they didn't see pornographic images... Is that what you are saying?
Is that what I said? Then there's your answer.
then you must basically be saying that "porn is criminal because you shouldn't offer porn to small children.
then you must basically be saying that "porn is criminal because you shouldn't offer porn to small children.
Did I say that, either? All I said was "If porn is illegal to offer to minors on the street, it should be illegal to offer to minors via e-mail". Not a circular argument, and I'm suprised you found it so hard to understand.
Offering porn to minors might be criminal, but you certainly did not explain why.
I don't have to explain why. It's not up to me to prove why offering porn to minors is illegal, because it already is. I am merely extending the illegality to email by analogy. If offering porn to minors is illegal, then doing so via email should also be illegal. If there's something special about the medium that invalidates my point, then feel free to explain, but I do not have to argue for/against porn itself.
You are just using fear mongering and stereotypes to promote your view, rather than bringing forth useful facts that answer the question.
What useful facts are necessary? What stereotypes am I promoting? And why shouldn't someone be afraid of pornographers targetting small children? The article came full of useful facts and statistics. Read the fucking thing if you need more data.
Sure, parents have responsibility to keep kids somewhat sheltered, but the rest of the population has some responsibility not to make the world such a shithole to raise kids in[...]
Indeed. Why is it so fashionable to make parents' jobs harder? Do people think we have it too easy or something?
Personally, I think we should make a new Internet: one that's so hard to use that businesspeople never figure it out and it's never a viable medium for selling things.
I'm with you to a point, but the internet got a lot more useful once business people figured it out. Online shopping, bill-paying, bank-balance-checking, etc. Not to mention that if we make the internet hard to use, how are kids going to use it? Still, it's nice to dream.
If I got an email from my father odds are good I'd miss it for the spam.
And that's a problem. One that should be solved, rather than adjust our idea of the internet to fit marketers' vision. Rather than submit to a sort of "white flight" from the ghetto of the 'net, we should take it back, and make it useful again.
And really what else is there to the internet today?
Spoken like a true music-pirating porn addict.
Emails from their father, for one.
I guess email marketers are going to have to do what other marketers of adult material are already legally required to: verify the age of their consumers. How? Who cares? Sorry if I don't shed a tear.
Everyone can benefit from computers in the classroom of course, but I don't see a need for them to be connected to the internet.
For a parent whose children live in another part of the country, the internet is an invaluable communication tool. What your saying amounts to not allowing a child to answer the phone until he/she is 18, because half your calls are some pervert heavy-breathing into the receiver. "You can use the phone when you're older, dear". Why not go after the pervert?
does not absolve parents and legal gardians of THEIR responsibility!
Insightful, my ass. It doesn't absolve providers of age-restricted materials the legal responsibility to restrict the age of their consumers.