I hate to be the one to mention it (OK, no I don't), but still no mention of when it'll be available for Mac? Or, more importantly, what the system requirements for Macs might be? Ah well, I guess I shouldn't complain, they don't mention Linux anywhere either but we know it'll be available right away for Linux, so it'll probably be available right away for Mac too. Ha.
They've probably forgotten much of it by now. I mean, they were just learning enough to tackle that specific problem, and assuming they're like me, they probably just don't have a head for languages. I did OK in French in high school, but if you don't practice it and keep it up, epsecially when it took great effort to do well in the first place, you quickly lose it.
But just as I still recognize a little French here and there from time to time, I would expect them to say something once or twice, like recognize a word here and there...
Have you watched any rock concert documentaries from the 60s and 70s? Most of the rock kids back then look like zombies if you ask me.
And it's funny that you define rock as "proper music played on musical instruments". As if a computer can't be a musical instrument. As if "rock is proper music" isn't a recursive definition...
If you ask me, rock and techno and hip-hop are all great. And if you ask me, the world will start being a little better place when age stops resenting youth and when youth stops disrespecting age.
With that, all interactions between government and the individual are defined by force.
Except when they're not. Just because you may not like the idea of government doesn't mean others feel the same. I'm proud to pay taxes to participate in this great society. I my money didn't fund certain things, but that's what my representatives are for.
That is the essence of government and what differentiates it from the "private sector".
You, my friend, have apparently never heard of exploitation.
Democracy. I did not advocate forcing anything on anyone. I would advocate our government (i.e., us) choosing to support such an endeavor. You could advocate against it. If the majority decided "no", fine with me. I may keep advocating, but I'm not going to complain.
Yes, Wikipedia (note the little p) is a great example of free association, except, it is a centralised service, isn't it? I mean, you don't host the articles on your own machine, you don't just serve your own webpage with articles you choose to write, do you? It's a coordinated project, a collective endeavor for knowledge storage & retrieval, with rules and standard practices.
It's also a good example of what can be lost if the libertarian dream of "charity" turns out to not work out. Considering their current funding difficulties, it ain't looking too bright. Maybe you should read the article I linked to...
Most Slashdot visitors are Democrats? Out of what orifice did you pull this anecdotal statistic? See, because in my experience, most Slashdot visitors seem to be libertarians who probably vote Republican. But I bet it's really about half and half like the nation at large. Not counting the international Slashdot visitors...
I don't think you have a very firm understanding of Libertarianism.
That's funny, I would say the same about you. I would say most self-described libertarians haven't really thought the principles through to their logical end. Yes, I've seen the LP website. I've seen the simplistic "political compass" quiz that is much bandied about on Slashdot. I've even read Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and some other libertarian thinkers. It's because I've read them that I'm not 100% libertarian.
Welfare isn't as simple as "taking money from one group and giving it to another". Society at large benefits from trying to keep everyone at least above a certain level. Perhaps the current programs need review and reforms, or outright replacement. But I think getting rid of them entirely would be short-sighted.
I also find it amusing that it's usually college students who espouse libertarianism, (just as it's usually college students who espouse the more extreme left views). College students are usually living off of someone else's money, and here they are talking about fiscal responsibility. I don't mean to apply that directly to you - you did mention that you are working and only borrowing, so I expect you don't have any grants or family money in the equation. But for other libertarians I've met, my point stands.
One final comment - My grandparent post was not intended to utterly disparage libertarianism or utterly support socialism. I would argue for a hybrid system, perhaps better structured than what we have now. They belong together, not on their own. Either one alone has serious flaws, I believe, but they complement each other well.
I believe a modicum of socialism is necessary for any society to function healthfully. Socialism is the dose of ethics and morals that says other people matter, whereas libertarianism classically has only property ethics. Other people are not considered except in as much as they might take one's property.
Libertarianism has at best no opinion, at worst an "it's their problem" opinion, on what to do about someone drowning in a lake. That's a weak analogy but I hope my point is taken.
Socialism is the person on the shore shouting, "Hey, shouldn't we do something to help?"
Unfortunately, totalitarian communism has unfairly tainted socialism for decades.
I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.
But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?
This country was a radical, liberal nation at its inception. The idea that a monarchy was unneeded, and that the people could govern themselves-- that was an incredibly forward-looking and progressive idea. Functioning democracy is the gift we have given the world. We need to be proud of it. And we need to recognize that we are patriots.
A patriot fights to defend freedom. Holding citizens without charging them? That's not patriotic. Lying to the nation to goad us into a petty, personal conquest? Not patriotic. Colluding with enemies like Iran for one's personal poltical gain? Certainly not patriotic, and even traitorous.
As liberals we deserve to derive our power from our nation's strong progressive history. Walk around Washington and look at those monuments: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. These were all men who were considered tremendously liberal by the standards of their age. Read some of what Lincoln-- the only Unitarian President-- says about the corporate power of his time and tell me that's not a liberal guy. Every just war we've fought-- the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II-- has been fought under the aegis of a liberal President.
The problem these days is that most liberals hate what this country is becoming in the hands of corporate and right-wing power, and because they fear what we are becoming they listen to the views of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al., who are intelligent people who need to be heard, but whose views cannot be the basis for a popular progressive movement. Any successful liberal movement must wrap itself in the flag. We must reclaim our role in America.
Put a flag decal on your Toyota Prius (or your Volvo, as the case may be). Fly it proudly in front of your house, behind your John Kerry (hell, or even Ralph Nader) lawn sign. That flag is the symbol of your country, but it's also the symbol of generations of Progressives who have fought, and struggled, and often died to make this country the nation that it is. Liberals have played an integral role in crafting America into a superpower, and it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.
So a trojan or worm or virus could still wipe out a user's home directory without any intervention - this is the most valuable data on any computer. If the user types in the password it could wipe out another good portion of the machine. So they have to clean their computer and reinstall everything anyway. How is this different from just having root access?
FYI, I use OS X at home, and resent having to use Windows at work, but Windows XP ain't that bad. It's Microsoft's business practices that I tend to object to.
I guess I would just say that, yeah, a better-designed system helps, but nothing can really make the system secure if users are not educated and don't make backups.
I hate Windows because I don't like it and yet I *HAVE* to use it pretty much everywhere I go. It's that forcing that I don't like. Sure, PS2 is a popular product, but I don't *HAVE* to use it. SONY might make great DVD players, but I don't *HAVE* to buy their DVD players.
There's virtually no choice when it comes to computers, you pretty much have to use Windows. I hate that. And Microsoft is responsible, they didn't just happen to become ubiquitous, they forced it for their own profits, and so I don't like them either.
Frankly, Linux is crap for home use of any kind unless you're a masochist, but Mac OS X is a breath of fresh air. Not perfect, but not just different either. It does enough things better or at least "right" that I can ignore that it can't run or use every program or hardware I might throw at it. The interoperability and ease of use of the software makes it more than worth it. And I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a new switcher.
Back in the day, I had hoped OS/2 Warp might turn into what Mac OS X is today. But there were too many hurdles and IBM didn't see them or just wasn't interested...
You can make an argument that it is naive to think everything is controlled by the consumer,
That's what I was saying, partly. I think the larger issue is that die-hard libertarians are naive in thinking there is never any such thing as a victim in any situation. That's usually what most libertarian "reason" boils down to. The victim should have known better. Whilst corporations rape our society, that sure makes me feel better.
but you're naive to think that the consumer, and his relative education level, does not matter.
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Of course that is a factor. My point is merely that it is not one or the other, it is both. People need to educate themselves, but we as a society also need to put the smack down on companies that benefit from stupid people.
The argument that companies aren't people and don't know any better and are just machines for generating profit should then be lent towards a movement to remove corporate personhood from the lawbooks. Either they're people and must be punished like them for hurtful or negligent deception, or they're not and shouldn't receive the benefits that citizens enjoy under the law.
Marketing campaigns prey on people's emotional weaknesses, to get them to think their lives will be better if only they buy brand X, which is much better than brand Y and so much better than not buying anything at all. Once you can get past the emotional response to crafted marketing and be objective and use reason to make decisions, then you can stop "lovin' it" and stop blaming corporations for doing what they're best at, i.e. making money.
First off, it isn't just emotional marketing, there is marketing that actually misleads people to believe bad food is good (or at least OK) for them. And it isn't all straight-out marketing and advertising - corporations spend a lot of money on public relations efforts that are really little more than guerilla psychological operations. Against the information onslaught from corporations with a drive for profit, who command media and money in greater quantities and with greater skill than any average citizen could ever muster, how easy is it, really, for citizens to "overcome" and approach objectively?
Note to moderators: this is not off-topic, Alton Brown talks about this on his blog, and I'm talking about his views on the subject.
Alton Brown, I love your show, but you need to revise your thoughts on food politics just a tad. You share a flaw in your worldview that most libertarians have which is the idea that all people are equal, and apparently that we are all 100% responsible for our own education. Is it OK that shysters and con artists are able to trick people out of their money, to make people believe they need more than they can afford, to teach people to eat too much bad food? Is it always 100% the fault of the consumer that they have not been educated in these aspects? Is it not partly the responsibility of society to educate ourselves to protect against such opportunists?
When corporations know so much more about marketing and communication and public relations that they can hide health facts from the public and work hard to convince people that the slop they sell is OK to eat - when corporations go to a lot of effort to allow such beliefs to flourish for their own profits - is this really all the fault of the consumer? There are powerful, wealthy forces working for people to spend their money every day at McDonalds, and very few, weak, poor forces working at the opposite. And yet you suggest that fat consumers are just stupid and that's OK? Man, that's not just harsh, that's naive in and of itself.
I'm not sure lawsuits are the best way to go about this, and if they're not the courts will eventually throw them out. But these corporations that profit from taking advantage of people, whose interests lie in the public being largely uneducated, and who therefore invest greatly in misinformation and marketing to the poor - these corporations need to be checked somehow, and as of yet there is no force in society willing to bitch-slap them.
I agree with your sentiment that there are no bad foods, only bad food habits. Heck, I could probably eat a small amount of toxic sludge (if I wanted to) without much harm. It's the amounts, not the foods themselves, that are bad. But it is incredibly naive of you to ignore the political and economic interests at work in the food industry, and to say straight out that it's all the result of people being stupid.
Every one will flock to area 51, then you do your real work at area 52 (or what ever they might call it) I also doubt there are any extra terrestrial research going on in the government, think about it you need the best of the best to even think of starting it, and the government well its the government what other insult do I need to lob at it.
I don't know, but feel free to lob some extra periods & commas at your writing...:P
That is not what copyright says. Copyright, at least here in the USA, says that your creative expression belongs to everyone (how could it be otherwise, once you express an idea, we all share it, and you have not lost it, unlike if we all take your car and you don't have it anymore). Copyright simply grants you exclusive control of your expressions for a limited time, in order to artificially inflate the value of your expressions and therefore encourage you to continue being expressive.
Perhaps I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that performances and recordings of them fall under copyright. Copyright is not property.
I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to be the one to mention it (OK, no I don't), but still no mention of when it'll be available for Mac? Or, more importantly, what the system requirements for Macs might be? Ah well, I guess I shouldn't complain, they don't mention Linux anywhere either but we know it'll be available right away for Linux, so it'll probably be available right away for Mac too. Ha.
Some things are just too sarcastic to be taken for the sarcasm as which they were intended. Troll, my ass. But I'm not bitter. :P
They've probably forgotten much of it by now. I mean, they were just learning enough to tackle that specific problem, and assuming they're like me, they probably just don't have a head for languages. I did OK in French in high school, but if you don't practice it and keep it up, epsecially when it took great effort to do well in the first place, you quickly lose it.
But just as I still recognize a little French here and there from time to time, I would expect them to say something once or twice, like recognize a word here and there...
I'd be bitter if my lovely Stargate were pushed back to make room for your Muppet show, so I understand.
Have you watched any rock concert documentaries from the 60s and 70s? Most of the rock kids back then look like zombies if you ask me.
And it's funny that you define rock as "proper music played on musical instruments". As if a computer can't be a musical instrument. As if "rock is proper music" isn't a recursive definition...
If you ask me, rock and techno and hip-hop are all great. And if you ask me, the world will start being a little better place when age stops resenting youth and when youth stops disrespecting age.
With that, all interactions between government and the individual are defined by force.
Except when they're not. Just because you may not like the idea of government doesn't mean others feel the same. I'm proud to pay taxes to participate in this great society. I my money didn't fund certain things, but that's what my representatives are for.
That is the essence of government and what differentiates it from the "private sector".
You, my friend, have apparently never heard of exploitation.
Good job proposing to the first girl who didn't run away when you talked to her. [...] Sure beats growing some balls and being a man.
So... being lonely is manly? Why, you must be the manliest person who ever lived!
Democracy. I did not advocate forcing anything on anyone. I would advocate our government (i.e., us) choosing to support such an endeavor. You could advocate against it. If the majority decided "no", fine with me. I may keep advocating, but I'm not going to complain.
Yes, Wikipedia (note the little p) is a great example of free association, except, it is a centralised service, isn't it? I mean, you don't host the articles on your own machine, you don't just serve your own webpage with articles you choose to write, do you? It's a coordinated project, a collective endeavor for knowledge storage & retrieval, with rules and standard practices.
It's also a good example of what can be lost if the libertarian dream of "charity" turns out to not work out. Considering their current funding difficulties, it ain't looking too bright. Maybe you should read the article I linked to...
Nope, this is exactly the sort of thing we should all be funding for *our* interest. Bad for each, but good for all.
Most Slashdot visitors are Democrats? Out of what orifice did you pull this anecdotal statistic? See, because in my experience, most Slashdot visitors seem to be libertarians who probably vote Republican. But I bet it's really about half and half like the nation at large. Not counting the international Slashdot visitors...
If that be true, then I apologize for my memory. Since neither of us provided a source, I'll just leave it at that.
I don't think you have a very firm understanding of Libertarianism.
That's funny, I would say the same about you. I would say most self-described libertarians haven't really thought the principles through to their logical end. Yes, I've seen the LP website. I've seen the simplistic "political compass" quiz that is much bandied about on Slashdot. I've even read Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and some other libertarian thinkers. It's because I've read them that I'm not 100% libertarian.
Welfare isn't as simple as "taking money from one group and giving it to another". Society at large benefits from trying to keep everyone at least above a certain level. Perhaps the current programs need review and reforms, or outright replacement. But I think getting rid of them entirely would be short-sighted.
I also find it amusing that it's usually college students who espouse libertarianism, (just as it's usually college students who espouse the more extreme left views). College students are usually living off of someone else's money, and here they are talking about fiscal responsibility. I don't mean to apply that directly to you - you did mention that you are working and only borrowing, so I expect you don't have any grants or family money in the equation. But for other libertarians I've met, my point stands.
One final comment - My grandparent post was not intended to utterly disparage libertarianism or utterly support socialism. I would argue for a hybrid system, perhaps better structured than what we have now. They belong together, not on their own. Either one alone has serious flaws, I believe, but they complement each other well.
I believe a modicum of socialism is necessary for any society to function healthfully. Socialism is the dose of ethics and morals that says other people matter, whereas libertarianism classically has only property ethics. Other people are not considered except in as much as they might take one's property.
Libertarianism has at best no opinion, at worst an "it's their problem" opinion, on what to do about someone drowning in a lake. That's a weak analogy but I hope my point is taken.
Socialism is the person on the shore shouting, "Hey, shouldn't we do something to help?"
Unfortunately, totalitarian communism has unfairly tainted socialism for decades.
I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.
But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?
This country was a radical, liberal nation at its inception. The idea that a monarchy was unneeded, and that the people could govern themselves-- that was an incredibly forward-looking and progressive idea. Functioning democracy is the gift we have given the world. We need to be proud of it. And we need to recognize that we are patriots.
A patriot fights to defend freedom. Holding citizens without charging them? That's not patriotic. Lying to the nation to goad us into a petty, personal conquest? Not patriotic. Colluding with enemies like Iran for one's personal poltical gain? Certainly not patriotic, and even traitorous.
As liberals we deserve to derive our power from our nation's strong progressive history. Walk around Washington and look at those monuments: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. These were all men who were considered tremendously liberal by the standards of their age. Read some of what Lincoln-- the only Unitarian President-- says about the corporate power of his time and tell me that's not a liberal guy. Every just war we've fought-- the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II-- has been fought under the aegis of a liberal President.
The problem these days is that most liberals hate what this country is becoming in the hands of corporate and right-wing power, and because they fear what we are becoming they listen to the views of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al., who are intelligent people who need to be heard, but whose views cannot be the basis for a popular progressive movement. Any successful liberal movement must wrap itself in the flag. We must reclaim our role in America.
Put a flag decal on your Toyota Prius (or your Volvo, as the case may be). Fly it proudly in front of your house, behind your John Kerry (hell, or even Ralph Nader) lawn sign. That flag is the symbol of your country, but it's also the symbol of generations of Progressives who have fought, and struggled, and often died to make this country the nation that it is. Liberals have played an integral role in crafting America into a superpower, and it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.
You're right, I don't think spotlight seems like LaunchBar - but it does remind me a lot of Quicksilver. But that doesn't mean these are new ideas...
And here's a rebuttal of Hardylaw on Kuro5hin.
Personally, I don't like either of them, but until Rush disappears, I'm glad Moore's there.
So a trojan or worm or virus could still wipe out a user's home directory without any intervention - this is the most valuable data on any computer. If the user types in the password it could wipe out another good portion of the machine. So they have to clean their computer and reinstall everything anyway. How is this different from just having root access?
FYI, I use OS X at home, and resent having to use Windows at work, but Windows XP ain't that bad. It's Microsoft's business practices that I tend to object to.
I guess I would just say that, yeah, a better-designed system helps, but nothing can really make the system secure if users are not educated and don't make backups.
I hate Windows because I don't like it and yet I *HAVE* to use it pretty much everywhere I go. It's that forcing that I don't like. Sure, PS2 is a popular product, but I don't *HAVE* to use it. SONY might make great DVD players, but I don't *HAVE* to buy their DVD players.
There's virtually no choice when it comes to computers, you pretty much have to use Windows. I hate that. And Microsoft is responsible, they didn't just happen to become ubiquitous, they forced it for their own profits, and so I don't like them either.
Frankly, Linux is crap for home use of any kind unless you're a masochist, but Mac OS X is a breath of fresh air. Not perfect, but not just different either. It does enough things better or at least "right" that I can ignore that it can't run or use every program or hardware I might throw at it. The interoperability and ease of use of the software makes it more than worth it. And I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a new switcher.
Back in the day, I had hoped OS/2 Warp might turn into what Mac OS X is today. But there were too many hurdles and IBM didn't see them or just wasn't interested...
You can make an argument that it is naive to think everything is controlled by the consumer,
That's what I was saying, partly. I think the larger issue is that die-hard libertarians are naive in thinking there is never any such thing as a victim in any situation. That's usually what most libertarian "reason" boils down to. The victim should have known better. Whilst corporations rape our society, that sure makes me feel better.
but you're naive to think that the consumer, and his relative education level, does not matter.
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Of course that is a factor. My point is merely that it is not one or the other, it is both. People need to educate themselves, but we as a society also need to put the smack down on companies that benefit from stupid people.
The argument that companies aren't people and don't know any better and are just machines for generating profit should then be lent towards a movement to remove corporate personhood from the lawbooks. Either they're people and must be punished like them for hurtful or negligent deception, or they're not and shouldn't receive the benefits that citizens enjoy under the law.
Marketing campaigns prey on people's emotional weaknesses, to get them to think their lives will be better if only they buy brand X, which is much better than brand Y and so much better than not buying anything at all. Once you can get past the emotional response to crafted marketing and be objective and use reason to make decisions, then you can stop "lovin' it" and stop blaming corporations for doing what they're best at, i.e. making money.
First off, it isn't just emotional marketing, there is marketing that actually misleads people to believe bad food is good (or at least OK) for them. And it isn't all straight-out marketing and advertising - corporations spend a lot of money on public relations efforts that are really little more than guerilla psychological operations. Against the information onslaught from corporations with a drive for profit, who command media and money in greater quantities and with greater skill than any average citizen could ever muster, how easy is it, really, for citizens to "overcome" and approach objectively?
Note to moderators: this is not off-topic, Alton Brown talks about this on his blog, and I'm talking about his views on the subject.
Alton Brown, I love your show, but you need to revise your thoughts on food politics just a tad. You share a flaw in your worldview that most libertarians have which is the idea that all people are equal, and apparently that we are all 100% responsible for our own education. Is it OK that shysters and con artists are able to trick people out of their money, to make people believe they need more than they can afford, to teach people to eat too much bad food? Is it always 100% the fault of the consumer that they have not been educated in these aspects? Is it not partly the responsibility of society to educate ourselves to protect against such opportunists?
When corporations know so much more about marketing and communication and public relations that they can hide health facts from the public and work hard to convince people that the slop they sell is OK to eat - when corporations go to a lot of effort to allow such beliefs to flourish for their own profits - is this really all the fault of the consumer? There are powerful, wealthy forces working for people to spend their money every day at McDonalds, and very few, weak, poor forces working at the opposite. And yet you suggest that fat consumers are just stupid and that's OK? Man, that's not just harsh, that's naive in and of itself.
I'm not sure lawsuits are the best way to go about this, and if they're not the courts will eventually throw them out. But these corporations that profit from taking advantage of people, whose interests lie in the public being largely uneducated, and who therefore invest greatly in misinformation and marketing to the poor - these corporations need to be checked somehow, and as of yet there is no force in society willing to bitch-slap them.
I agree with your sentiment that there are no bad foods, only bad food habits. Heck, I could probably eat a small amount of toxic sludge (if I wanted to) without much harm. It's the amounts, not the foods themselves, that are bad. But it is incredibly naive of you to ignore the political and economic interests at work in the food industry, and to say straight out that it's all the result of people being stupid.
Every one will flock to area 51, then you do your real work at area 52 (or what ever they might call it) I also doubt there are any extra terrestrial research going on in the government, think about it you need the best of the best to even think of starting it, and the government well its the government what other insult do I need to lob at it.
:P
I don't know, but feel free to lob some extra periods & commas at your writing...
That is not what copyright says. Copyright, at least here in the USA, says that your creative expression belongs to everyone (how could it be otherwise, once you express an idea, we all share it, and you have not lost it, unlike if we all take your car and you don't have it anymore). Copyright simply grants you exclusive control of your expressions for a limited time, in order to artificially inflate the value of your expressions and therefore encourage you to continue being expressive.
Although I generally think Richard Stallman is a bit extreme for my tastes, you really should read his short writing on "intellectual property".
Perhaps I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that performances and recordings of them fall under copyright. Copyright is not property.
I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.
You've got that wrong, it's "You gotta love someone you can sodomize."