"Imagine if the GOP still had a former KKK member in there ranks... Geee, he would have to resign"
The Republicans did have David Duke (KKK) in their ranks. However, the party repudiated him on a national and state level. They even urged voters to vote for Democrats opposing him. The Dems have yet to shun Robt. Byrd.
"Yes, the Republicans freed the slaves, but that was almost 150 years ago -- I'd say the GOP's more than a little different now"
In this idea, at least, they are the same. Efforts to support equal treatment regardless and rights regardless of race find the most support among Republicans, and the Democrats tend to strongly oppose equal/fair treatment. (Here's an excellent example where the Republicans tended to side with equal rights and the Dems went with the racists.)
"In fact, all of those Democrats who sought to maintain segregation? They've long since switched parties and are Republicans now."
Men such as KKK Grand Wizard Senator Robert Byrd? (D-WV).
Consumers expect to pay a reasonable price for software and hardware (and who doesn't agree, for example, than an iPod is a marvel for a reasonable price?). However, consumers also expect to be able to play the music/movies they bought on their own hardware without hassle. Wanting no DRM is not the same as wanting free hardware.
If "Apple's preferences" were really "aligned with those of consumers", there'd be be no DRM hassle, and buyers of the content could easily burn it to DVD/etc to watch on their TVs. Do YOU like DRM? What consumer does????
"....and the savings for a company cheating and using the cheap labour generally far outweigh any impact the minority doing the right thing cost them."
"Hmm, technically you are right, they supposedly were on their way to communism, but never got there."
One of the excuses they use (used) for communism's failure was that communism could not succeed if there were capitalist countries nearby. Really. In other words, the only way communism can be the best system out there is if it is the only system out there.
"I didn't say anything about Bush. He's a part of the problem, but America's tendency to play well with tyrants around the world goes back several presidents, and Congress has a lot to do with it as well."
And then there's Castro, one of the worst and longest-ruling tyrants. The US doesn't play well with him (but the rest of the world does).
" that is, if something has a value to the person you are taking it from, you are depriving them of that value by taking it."
Copyright infringement does not meet the requirements of "taking".
"my theft of services example: why can't I stay in a hotel room for free if noone else was going to use it anyway"
Excellent example of how it does NOT apply. In copyright infringement, there's no service to be stolen! Say someone writes a game. They've done their "service" right there. It's over and done. Now the game is distributed. No matter how many times it is copied (or not), the amount of work (service) done remains the same. You don't have a guy spending 76 hours to write a game who is then forced to work 1.5 hours each time the game is copied.
That's a big contrast with theft of services. That night in the hotel? The maid had to clean the room. The laundry staff washed your sticky sheets. There's a service there.
"The problem is that eventually there won't be many consumers left who can afford a ticket"
They'll be able to afford more tickets, as the cost of aircraft goes down a lot.
"and leave their slave labor with crumbs"
China does have a problem with a large prison labor sector, but this is only a fraction of their entire workforce. While there is a distinct possibility, it is probable that the workers in the factories will not be slaves. Concentration of wealth? A non-issue, a non-problem.
" bring this up because in most cases, splitting hairs on definitions of particular words"
Not really applicable here, since the differences between theft and copyright violation (or cable contract cheating) are fundamental, and are not "splitting hairs". Immoral? Looks like we agree on that. But saying that there is no difference in the definition of "copyright infringement" and "theft" because both are immoral is like saying there is no difference in the model definition between a Cadillac and a Hummer because they are both "automobiles".
"Obtaining cable service in the manner I described is morally wrong."
I'm not sure, but I suspect it is. I admit ignorance on cable TV service agreements. Assuming that such sharing is a violation of the service agreement, then it is wrong (regardless of what you call the act, and regardless of laws). You'll have to check the cable TV company service agreement for verification. Why bring this up? I've never defended any of the non-theft situations as being right/moral/legal etc.
You make some good points there firing back at the weak troll, but Kuwait was not a detached province of Iraq. It's actually older (as a political entity) than the later creation of "Iraq" that was cobbled together.
I'm curious as to what your stand on Macedonia (the nation) was. The Greek hatred of this nation looks rather odd outside of Greece. The Greek government even tried to prevent it from using its actual name (a violation of the UN charter).
"I convince my neighbor to allow me to come onto his property and splice my cable into his."
Sure doesn't sound like theft, but it sounds like a violation of your service agreement with the cable company. It might, however, fit the definition of "theft of services", which (like theft of goods) still does not fit unauthorized duplication of content on media.
Now, why even ask if it is "morally ok"? Answer yourself. I have consistently referred to non-theft crimes as "wrong" in this discussion. There's not even any sort of attempt to justify or "excuse" anything by merely pointing out the proper definitions and distinctions between different wrong things and crimes..
"I see, so it's not theft if it does not affect the publisher's bottom line?"
No. All of those instances in those examples were theft. I was just discussing whether or not the theft affected the software publisher or not. In the case of software stolen from the retailer, the publisher probably benefits if the retailer ends up using the insurance money to order more software (from the publisher) to replace what was stolen. Rock-hard realities of who loses or gains are independent of whether or not something is "theft."
[cable TV example].
Not so sure on that one. By "sneaking" (your word) and damaging the neighbor's cable, it looks like for sure you have engaged in trespassing and property-damage. Both are crimes. Neither is theft. Whether "This is not theft" or not has nothing to do with whether you "afford cable".
"That works for you. Right?"
You are making the same mistake. Pointing out that something is not theft is NOT the same as saying it is OK. There are plenty of crimes that are not theft. Why do you even make this mistake?
"that have been made in games over the years. 'Innovations' like pits, spawn points, and long FMV sequences are just some of the choices they take to task here. From the article"
Yes, games would be so much easier without pits, walls, terrain obstacles, bad guys, and ammo limits. Oh, and they should ship them with godmode defaulted to "on".
"For all the "flaws" in capitalism, it works. Rather well. And there is not one instance in history where Communism has. QED."
Communism works quite well. If you have the goals of concentrating the most power in the fewest hands of people, of negating all human rights, of maximizing poverty to the greatest extent possible, and of killing a significant proportion of the human population, communism has proven to be the best method. Bar none. Why else do a majority of megalomaniac and despotic human leaders turn to it first? Only Nazism can come close, but even that doesn't do as well as communism in some aspects (such as the goal of extreme impoverishment.)
"Communism were authoritarian nutjobs hardly proves that Marx didn't have any useful ideas."
That might have worked as an excuse for the first time. But when, time after time, attempts to apply Marx result in tremendous human catastrophe, you start to wonder if the source is really the problem to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting points until you got to the end: "1] Hint: allofmp3.com is not in this category, because they're basically stealing all of the content"
In reality. Allofmp3 has stolen nothing. There are copyright problems as you mentioned, but it is extremely misleading to link them with theft.
"Imagine if the GOP still had a former KKK member in there ranks... Geee, he would have to resign"
The Republicans did have David Duke (KKK) in their ranks. However, the party repudiated him on a national and state level. They even urged voters to vote for Democrats opposing him. The Dems have yet to shun Robt. Byrd.
"Yes, the Republicans freed the slaves, but that was almost 150 years ago -- I'd say the GOP's more than a little different now"
In this idea, at least, they are the same. Efforts to support equal treatment regardless and rights regardless of race find the most support among Republicans, and the Democrats tend to strongly oppose equal/fair treatment. (Here's an excellent example where the Republicans tended to side with equal rights and the Dems went with the racists.)
"In fact, all of those Democrats who sought to maintain segregation? They've long since switched parties and are Republicans now."
Men such as KKK Grand Wizard Senator Robert Byrd? (D-WV).
"But look at what they saved over that period by getting rid of indoor ashtrays"
Why on earth would anyone need to set fires inside the airport???
Consumers expect to pay a reasonable price for software and hardware (and who doesn't agree, for example, than an iPod is a marvel for a reasonable price?). However, consumers also expect to be able to play the music/movies they bought on their own hardware without hassle. Wanting no DRM is not the same as wanting free hardware.
If "Apple's preferences" were really "aligned with those of consumers", there'd be be no DRM hassle, and buyers of the content could easily burn it to DVD/etc to watch on their TVs. Do YOU like DRM? What consumer does????
"....and the savings for a company cheating and using the cheap labour generally far outweigh any impact the minority doing the right thing cost them."
Hiring the best is not "cheating."
"Hmm, technically you are right, they supposedly were on their way to communism, but never got there."
One of the excuses they use (used) for communism's failure was that communism could not succeed if there were capitalist countries nearby. Really. In other words, the only way communism can be the best system out there is if it is the only system out there.
"I didn't say anything about Bush. He's a part of the problem, but America's tendency to play well with tyrants around the world goes back several presidents, and Congress has a lot to do with it as well."
And then there's Castro, one of the worst and longest-ruling tyrants. The US doesn't play well with him (but the rest of the world does).
" that everybody in those times voted for a Republican--no matter whom they voted for."
They're all right-wing lunatics, I'll tell ya! Neanderthal-brained Dittoheads, the lot of 'em.
I'm assuming that the Wikipedia guys have a slightly better backup system in place.
"Better example: Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slaveowners"
They're left-wing lunatics, I tell ya! Neither one ever voted for a Republican during his entire life.
" that is, if something has a value to the person you are taking it from, you are depriving them of that value by taking it."
Copyright infringement does not meet the requirements of "taking".
"my theft of services example: why can't I stay in a hotel room for free if noone else was going to use it anyway"
Excellent example of how it does NOT apply. In copyright infringement, there's no service to be stolen! Say someone writes a game. They've done their "service" right there. It's over and done. Now the game is distributed. No matter how many times it is copied (or not), the amount of work (service) done remains the same. You don't have a guy spending 76 hours to write a game who is then forced to work 1.5 hours each time the game is copied.
That's a big contrast with theft of services. That night in the hotel? The maid had to clean the room. The laundry staff washed your sticky sheets. There's a service there.
"The problem is that eventually there won't be many consumers left who can afford a ticket"
They'll be able to afford more tickets, as the cost of aircraft goes down a lot.
"and leave their slave labor with crumbs"
China does have a problem with a large prison labor sector, but this is only a fraction of their entire workforce. While there is a distinct possibility, it is probable that the workers in the factories will not be slaves. Concentration of wealth? A non-issue, a non-problem.
" bring this up because in most cases, splitting hairs on definitions of particular words"
Not really applicable here, since the differences between theft and copyright violation (or cable contract cheating) are fundamental, and are not "splitting hairs". Immoral? Looks like we agree on that. But saying that there is no difference in the definition of "copyright infringement" and "theft" because both are immoral is like saying there is no difference in the model definition between a Cadillac and a Hummer because they are both "automobiles".
"Obtaining cable service in the manner I described is morally wrong."
I'm not sure, but I suspect it is. I admit ignorance on cable TV service agreements. Assuming that such sharing is a violation of the service agreement, then it is wrong (regardless of what you call the act, and regardless of laws). You'll have to check the cable TV company service agreement for verification. Why bring this up? I've never defended any of the non-theft situations as being right/moral/legal etc.
I'm curious as to what your stand on Macedonia (the nation) was. The Greek hatred of this nation looks rather odd outside of Greece. The Greek government even tried to prevent it from using its actual name (a violation of the UN charter).
"I convince my neighbor to allow me to come onto his property and splice my cable into his."
Sure doesn't sound like theft, but it sounds like a violation of your service agreement with the cable company. It might, however, fit the definition of "theft of services", which (like theft of goods) still does not fit unauthorized duplication of content on media.
Now, why even ask if it is "morally ok"? Answer yourself. I have consistently referred to non-theft crimes as "wrong" in this discussion. There's not even any sort of attempt to justify or "excuse" anything by merely pointing out the proper definitions and distinctions between different wrong things and crimes..
Are those ghosts in Pacman to be referred to as "Terrorists", or is it just OK to occasionally say that they hate America?
"I see, so it's not theft if it does not affect the publisher's bottom line?"
No. All of those instances in those examples were theft. I was just discussing whether or not the theft affected the software publisher or not. In the case of software stolen from the retailer, the publisher probably benefits if the retailer ends up using the insurance money to order more software (from the publisher) to replace what was stolen. Rock-hard realities of who loses or gains are independent of whether or not something is "theft."
[cable TV example].
Not so sure on that one. By "sneaking" (your word) and damaging the neighbor's cable, it looks like for sure you have engaged in trespassing and property-damage. Both are crimes. Neither is theft. Whether "This is not theft" or not has nothing to do with whether you "afford cable".
"That works for you. Right?"
You are making the same mistake. Pointing out that something is not theft is NOT the same as saying it is OK. There are plenty of crimes that are not theft. Why do you even make this mistake?
"that have been made in games over the years. 'Innovations' like pits, spawn points, and long FMV sequences are just some of the choices they take to task here. From the article"
Yes, games would be so much easier without pits, walls, terrain obstacles, bad guys, and ammo limits. Oh, and they should ship them with godmode defaulted to "on".
"It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay"
Joined the mile high club, eh?
I am tempted to comment on the books, but it would be badly OT. Should I comment in your DBA journal instead?
"For all the "flaws" in capitalism, it works. Rather well. And there is not one instance in history where Communism has. QED."
Communism works quite well. If you have the goals of concentrating the most power in the fewest hands of people, of negating all human rights, of maximizing poverty to the greatest extent possible, and of killing a significant proportion of the human population, communism has proven to be the best method. Bar none. Why else do a majority of megalomaniac and despotic human leaders turn to it first? Only Nazism can come close, but even that doesn't do as well as communism in some aspects (such as the goal of extreme impoverishment.)
"Communism were authoritarian nutjobs hardly proves that Marx didn't have any useful ideas."
That might have worked as an excuse for the first time. But when, time after time, attempts to apply Marx result in tremendous human catastrophe, you start to wonder if the source is really the problem to begin with.