Not unless they're in the military, no. Private parties should never have the privelege of hampering speech, and government should only be able to do so in certain military matters. Btw, yes, this implies the abolition of intellectual property.
Interesting. What would be your solution to medical research, i.e. something that's a little less frivolous than consumer electronics? Would you be fine with them packing up and going home if they can't continue their research? Even at the expense of human lives?
If you believe that leaking private secrets should be illegal, unless you're talking about military secrets, then you're an enemy of freedom, and you are immoral.
What's an "enemy of freedom"? Is it someone who opposes some forms of freedom? Is someone who is opposed to murder an "enemy of freedom", since he is opposes the freedom to murder? Or is it freedoms that you approve of?
Certainly freedom of speech appears to be on the "don't touch" list. Is it evil to protect privacy? To protect bank accounts and credit cards? I am highly sceptical that you truly believe that we are better off in a world that highly discourages medical innovation and that considers the protection of privacy immoral.
I'm not going to touch immoral, but if you believe that it should be illegal, then how can you justify someone being able to waive their right to freedom of speech for a non-military matter?
Freedom of choice, you evil enemy of freedom! Some speech rights should definitely be inalienable, but taking that principle to its hyperbolic extreme is both impractical and oppressive. What is freedom, if not the ability to act, harming only those who consent, without fear of reprisal? By making it impossible to temporarily and voluntarily waive certain non-essential rights, you are, by definition, curtailing their freedom.
I see what you're saying, and I see that you see what I was saying (unlike the OP). I like to be careful around this topic, since it's filled with misinformation. You see, there's an entire ideology called Libertarianism (perhaps you've heard of it) that believes that the government should never be given the benefit of the doubt, and that when there is any lack of, or ambiguity in, information about the government's behaviour, the worst should automatically be assumed.
That works fine for maintaining a free society, but I start to get worried when people start muddling conjecture with fact. I get even more worried when they start arguing from conjecture rather than fact. They convince others of the conjecture's truth, simply by making sound like established fact. That's why I felt the need to respond when the OP claimed loudly that he had proof that the US government's corruption was spreading (notice the implicit use of the "fact" that the US government is corrupt, which has not been properly established to my knowledge).
So, in the spirit of sorting conjecture from fact, any chance you could dig up some of these documents? I would like to see them and judge for myself exactly what they prove. It's nothing personal, but I see there is a possibility that you, or the people who explained the gist of them to you, read them under the assumption of wrongdoing, and in doing so, exaggerated any actual evidence of wrongdoing. So, yeah, if you could dig up any of those documents, I would appreciate it.
you assume 'offer to help' comes without 'pushing for it'
I don't. There's a distinction here that you're not comprehending. I'm not saying this is what actually happened, I'm saying that everything we've observed is consistent with this happening. So, simply from our observations, there is no proof that you talked about.
I'm sorry, but you're frothy-mouthed zealotry is causing you to make the assumptions, not just about what is happening out there, but also about what I'm saying.
oh yes - you just rationalized and justified it - a government interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people, in another country
How is one government offering to help another government "interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people"? It's an offer that the US government is making to the NZ government, which has the choice to accept or reject it. If the US offered financial aid to disaster-affected areas, would this counstrued similarly? Of course not. What makes them different? Of course, you would say:
because private interests ask it.
But, in my scenario, the government is not acting at the behest of private interests; it's working for the good of the public. Again, I claim that this scenario is consistent with what we've seen. Since, there is an alternative scenario which fits observations, you cannot possibly have proved, using these observations alone, that this scenario could not be true, and that your scenario is necessarily true.
I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.
While being deliberately obtuse can be fun, it's a lot more productive to refine the GP's statement to something that can't be attacked so trivially. Perhaps something along the lines of:
I think people should be expected to pay for things that they use that other people work to provide for them, and for which they expect payment in return.
It doesn't roll off the tongue so easily, but it at least covers all of your examples. It also is a lot more difficult to argue against.
IMO file sharing should be legal
Why? Because a book publisher discovered that a single book had a sales spike after giving it away on the internet? Generalising it over all artists in all forms of art, entertainment, and science seems a bit of a leap. It seems that artists are similarly sceptical. Exactly how many successful artists have actually found that their business has been helped by providing their works for free? How many formerly unsuccessful artists have actually created success on the back of this business model? Compared to the number that haven't, the numbers are insignificant. You might as well convince me that a handful of people have survived lightning strikes, so I should carry a lightning rod and stand barefoot on a metal grate in a thunderstorm.
However, I get the impression that this "evidence" is not the reason why you believe sharing should be legal. After all, if you base your criteria primarily on money, then how can you claim to be superior to the rest money-obsessed, money-worshiping society? So, arguing money is not going to make a dent in your belief that sharing should be legal. Rather, it would take some convincing that allowing sharing is no more ideal for you and other consumers than our current system. It would take some convincing that unrestricted sharing, far from being analogous to sharing candles, is actually something more akin to depleting a resource, despite its superficial appearance. I suppose I would also have to account for why indie artists manage to keep in business accounting for sharing, and why some publishers have noticed spikes in their sales when they release it free on the internet.
Essentially, the meat of my argument is (and has been for a very long time) that copyright is voluntary, and so removing simply removes choice and flexibility, not only for the artists, but for us as well. Every artist who wants to release their works for free (and who hasn't needed financial assistance from Big Media in order to record and distribute), has the opportunity to do so. And why wouldn't they? If what you say is true, and the artists benefit financially from such business models, then whether the artists prioritises getting fans or getting money, it's a win-win situation. Why isn't everyone releasing in this way?
The answer is that what you say is not true: artists are, by and large, worse off financially using these business models. This means that any benefits we obtain from forcing these business models on artists comes at their expense. Of course, nobody is forcing them to create or distribute, and you cannot be surprised if some decide to pack up and leave. Perhaps Brittany Spears and her ilk might have the popularity and finances to run it out, but any full-time artist
I wouldn't exactly call it proof. The actions are perfectly consistent with a country whose economy is significantly supported by exporting intellectual property. If that were the case, then this move would be in the best interests of the US population.
Actually, the questions posed are more rhetorical than anything. I was more generally talking about the OP's argument, rather than simply responding to it. The OP was claiming that leaking is only considered wrong because of corporate 'brainwashing'. I didn't present arguments as to why this is not the case, but I did outline why I thought that his arguments on that particular point were worthless.
As for what Apple actually should do, I think the discussion is pointless. We should be discussing what we should do. Apple responds to the shareholders, who respond generally to what we will and will not pay for. Their purpose is to make money, and we are the ones who provide it. Should we boycott goods made in China? I don't think it's feasible to expect a full boycott, since so much of what we use is made in China. Rather, given a choice between goods, try not to choose the one made in China.
On the other hand, is it morally justified to attempt to wound a large country's economy, and kill the jobs of a people who are already suffering, just because of the behaviour of their government? I haven't really made up my mind on that one yet.
OK, I will say it again, you are trying to impose western ideas and expectations on a place where they are complete fantasy.
And I'll say it again, no I'm not. I'm not talking about China. It doesn't even enter into the points I was making. The only one that comes close is my berating the OP for his imposing of his views upon the west.
Now I'm sorry, but I'm kind of sick of people trying to convince me of a point that I don't contend about a subject that doesn't particularly interest me, so I'm not going to read the rest of your comment.
No. What I want is evidence that every person who believes leaking is morally wrong, do so primarily because of corporate influence. That is, had the person access to all the relevant facts, that they would have sided with you on the issue. This premise would validate your argument, and it is the implicit assumption that this premise holds that gives your argument the power to convcince people. I cannot see any reason why it would be true, but if you can prove it to me (or demonstrate its likely or approximate truth), then I will concede that your argument is sound (or at least, not entirely worthless).
There you go. I have stated clearly exactly what it would take to change my mind on the issue at hand, and therefore win the argument. Try getting that from an discussion on slashdot!
i dont have proof of 'brainwashing' because nobody is sure what the word even means.
As far as I can tell, it is a synonym for 'convincing', used to ridicule people for holding an opinion, without addressing the truth of the opinion itself. You are welcome, of course, to show me otherwise.
you can start with the history of the espionage act, especially 18 USC 793(e), which has been used against everyone from Russo and Ellsberg to Wen Ho Lee to the AIPAC case.
then go and read about Barry Seal, Oliver North, and etc. don't stop there. read about how presidents and congress 'leak' information all the time to get stories going in the media.
now read about Lehman Brothers: Erin Callan leaked a deal they were planning to the media, to influence public perception. her plan failed, she was fired. she did not go to jail, she did not get excoriated by the police and get a 'crime' tag on financial blogs. she just got fired.
You weren't expected to know this, but I also don't accept hypocricy as a valid argument against a position. It too is just an ad hominem attack on the person holding an argument, rather than actually dealing with the truth of the argument itself. Sure, there may be something morally wrong with the people who engage in hypocricy, but it has no bearing on the truth of what they preach. For example, a father might tell his child to stop skipping classes and graduate from high school, even though he skipped classes and dropped out when he was his child's age. Does this make it bad advice? No. All it means is that the father cannot easily take the moral high ground on the issue.
So, the fact that you pointed out various people in positions of power who have engaged in leaking does not pursuade me one way or the other that leaking is wrong or not. Just like if they engaged in murder, it would not pursuade me that murder was morally justified.
He's more so appealing to the "Wake up sheeple!!" argument. It's pretty common, and based on the idea that everyone is blindly accepting the propaganda of $THE_RULING_CLASSES which is necessary to maintain the unequal status quo.
It's interesting the difference in viewpoint here. We read the same argument (with ill-defined premises and conclusions), and came up with two distinct reasons why it was supposed to be convincing, which reveal two distinct ways of looking at the argument. The way that I see it, it's not a very constructive argument. It's purpose is to ridicule the opposing side and the neutrals so that the only respectible side to take is the same side as the OP. The way that you see it (to the best of my ability to guess what that way actually is from your comments), it's supposed to be something constructive; to spark people to make a change in the world beyond their opinion. You don't find it convincing because you don't think that it fulfills its purpose, whereas I don't think that it's convincing because I don't believe he's successfully demonstrated that the other side is wrong.
I suppose that multiple interpretations is not the worst thing you get when your arguments based more on emotional appeal, rather than rationale.
Or, perhaps you ignore the factory workers because they're inconvenient to your point
Oh, please then, explain to everyone how the existence of factory workers is even the slightest bit "inconvenient" to either of my points. No really, go ahead. Come on internet tough guy, make my day.
I swear, we've gotta be more careful when talking about China, or someone is going to put an eye out with all this knee-jerking. I come out talking about bad logic (as I often do), and so many idiots manage to somehow conclude that I'm prioritising ipads over human rights atrocities. The irony would be funny if it weren't so depressing.
Giving out information is worse than torturing people?
I don't know why parent got modded so high.
If I had to guess, I'd say it had probably something to do with the mods realising that this is not even close to what I was saying. This probably stemmed from them reading my post, comprehending it, and thinking before jerking their knees (assuming they jerked their knees at all).
I was not prioritising Apple over anybody or anything, rather I was pointing out that Apple's position had absolutely no priority whatsoever in the OP's argument. In fact, it's not so much the fact that it's Apple's problem, rather it is the problem (whosever it is) that lead to the way things are now (specifically, regarding "leaks" and their being illegal/wrong/whatever). Nothing can change if we ignore the source of the problem. Perhaps the solution is, as I suggested, for Apple (or anyone else) not to release hardware in general? Perhaps that is the solution that is, all things considered, the least of all evils? I don't know, but I'm damn sure that nothing will get done with completely nonconstructive criticism.
As for the factories, they don't really enter into my point at all. They don't enter into my argument, nor in the specific point of the argument to which I was responding. I'm not ignoring them, I'm not making a statement that they are more or less important than anything in particular, and I'm certainly not saying the OP was wrong about them. In fact, I would say the OP made a compelling case that these factories are morally bad (partially because he actually demonstrated they were bad, not just that the people who believe they aren't bad are morally bad). I didn't mention them for the same reason you don't mention them when discussing what to cook for dinner: because the factories aren't relevant to the particular point you're trying to get across.
In any circumstance upon which you are paying for something which you don't subsequently own, you have made an agreement as such. Whether it's the lease on a car or a verbal agreement with the clerk at your local video rental store, there's an agreement made. It's generally understood that if I purchase something, by giving money to a store for a product, in absence of other agreements, I own that which I purchased. It's one of the bases of a market economy.
Agreed.
As far as the EULA is concerned, the EULA applies only to the software that comes with the console. Assuming that you agree with the existance of a EULA.
The EULA would disagree. It is an agreement that you need to "agree" to in order to use the software, but the terms of the agreement could extend to hardware, if not further.
Even in that situation, if you only use the console to tweak and hack and not in the circumstances under which the EULA is applicable, have you really agreed to it?
Well, we could talk about whether or not terms in the (software) EULA that pertain to hardware are legally enforceable or not, but I don't really know much about that. My law student friend told me once that in Australia, where we live, a contract (including an EULA) is only enforceable when both parties understand the terms of the agreement, and so an EULA cannot be enforced without the user actually bothering to take the time to read it. In more natural terms, I would agree that it is not possible to agree to something without first understanding it. In that respect, to me, all EULAs are not true agreements, rather a set of conditions by which users may optionally be bound. I only wish that the courts in other countries would agree.
You do have a point that without clarification, the statement "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is not entirely true. Such as just because I own a knife, does not mean I can stab someone with it. Therefore let's consider what specifically can be stated to clarify the statement correctly. Clearly we can say that if i own it, i may do what I like with it providing that my actions to not break the law. That covers the knife example. Your house example is slightly more complex. It can be considered that needing the council to approve the building is "the law" ad thus the statement works, though I'm open to other interpretations. Theoretically, the only thing that "prevents" one from hacking or tweaking the hardware they buy would be a EULA because they don't sign any kind of agreement at purchase. Thus this description of ownership is workable.:) It's obviously not perfect though.
I agree. What more can I say?:-)
I enjoy rational and logical discussion so this is fun.:) I see the questioning of the rationale as a challenge for me to meet.
And you have succeeded admirably!
Though, it is rational to assume someone who is being pedantic about being rational and having rational arguments is, themself, rational lol. If you aren't rational, this won't be as much fun to continue, so I hope you are. As this is quite amusing to me.:)
Well then, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am actually a conglomerate of a million monkeys on a million typewriters, with a panel of human editors, who's job it is to edinbfn234 29qwdjjna;w ubeqwruo ruj sdfh
its all fucking PR, bullshit, and lies. do not fucking drink the fucking koolaid.
you are a free human being, and you have natural rights. one of them is to talk. another is to be free from inane prosecutions by incompetent bureaucrats and clueless officials. by drumming this idea into your head that 'leaking' is a 'crime', they are trying to destroy free speech by brainwashing you into thinking it doesnt really exist. it does exist. its as free as the air and as free as the mind god gave you.
So, what is your solution for Apple's dilemma? They're trying to release their product, and not be ripped to pieces by cheap chinese knockoffs from companies who never had to eat the costs of design and R&D. Should the government subsidise them for their losses? Should they just refrain from releasing hardware in the future? Should we allow people to voluntarily enter into contracts to not talk about certain aspects of their working life? Without some actual solution to the problems that arose to present this situation, you might as well argue that time travel is a moral imperitive; you may make a pursuasive argument, but the argument itself will produce no positive change, and the argument is practically worthless.
Also, on a more personal note, I find arguments like this leave a very unpleasant taste in my mouth. It seems that the source of pursuasion comes not from demonstration that your position is right (or that their position is wrong), but from making people feel uncomfortable for believing the opposing side. If I believe that leaking private secrets is immoral, you are trying to implant the idea that this is because I have been brainwashed by companies, thus making me feel stupid or used for that belief, instead of convincing me that the belief is wrong. Who knows? Perhaps this idea that companies are implanting in our minds is 100% correct? Nothing in your argument addresses this, rather it preys off the ad hominem fallacy: that if someone as bad as corporations want us to believe it to be true, then it must be false.
Exchanging something to purchase something is completely a sufficient condition for ownership. The reason you do not own DVDs you borrow from the video store is because your transaction is not a transaction of purchase but of renting. Similar to leasing a vehicle vs purchasing it. If you lease the vehicle, you can't do whatever you want to it, if you purchase it then you can.
OK, so what makes you think that you have purchased your console? You paid money for it, but as we both agree, you can pay for things that you don't subsequently own.
It seems that the way you justify that conclusion is that you paid money in a store like you would if you were to buy anything else, without agreements. I suppose that is a good enough reason, if you don't agree with the EULA. If you do, then you are under an agreement, and the case could easily be made that you cannot do what you like to the console.
I should also point out that the inference that "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is possibly fallacious. It depends on what definition of ownership you use. For example, if I buy a house, most people would say that I own it. Yet, I need to get council approvement if want to, say, build an extra five stories on top of it. If the inference were valid, then logically, I would not own the house, because I could not do what I liked to it. I'm happy to say that I do not own the house I paid for (i.e. define ownership around this inference), just so long as we are clear.
Or, you could just ignore my pedantry. I enjoy picking apart those who deem themselves the rational side. More often than not, they don't have a rationale; it's mostly emotion driving their opinion. Of the people who do have a rationale, it often has flaws in it (which I can respect; at least they tried).
Now that we've established I own the console, what rational argument do you have for believing that I cannot do what I like with my property?
I never claimed that I believed that, nor did I claim to be rational.:-)
If current copyright law was used by everyone at every point in time, the best possible outcome would be every piece of art ever produced would be under the control of giant media conglomerates.
Where, in copyright law, does it say that giant media conglomerates are the only ones who can use copyright? Someone had better send out a memo to all those indie artists quick-snap, not to mention those GPL contributors!
There would be no public domain, or any works derived from it.
I also should point out that, under current copyright law (which you pointedly specified), copyright terms expire, and also fair use is part of the law, so taking derivations from works is fine, so long as you don't use more than 10% of the work, or whatever the precedented limit is.
Can you think of a single modern work that wouldn't be ruled out as derivative?
Almost everything released today cannot be ruled out, under current copyright law, as derivative. That's because "being inspired from" is something very different to "being derived from in the context of copyright law".
All of my poking holes in your hypotheses aside, I still don't accept your argument as valid. You can't really argue from hyperbole. For example, take an analogous argument:
"If everyone ate every piece of food they could find, everyone would become incredibly fat, until food ran out and everyone would starve. Therefore, eating food is clearly immoral, and incapable of attaining the goal to which it aspires (i.e. satisfying hunger; keeping the population alive)."
All you've done is proven that using copyright excessively doesn't work (immoral requires further argument). What about in moderation? What in your argument addresses using copyright in moderation?
[Rant] Of course, it's not going to matter, is it? You'll just get +4/+5 insightful like the OP, despite your clearly fallacious argument. Why? Because both you and him tell pirates exactly what they want to hear. Pirates suck at Big Media's teat, shout out that the milk tastes foul, and argue that if Big Media didn't want them to suck at their teat, then they shouldn't have made their milk so foul (for all the sense that that makes). They will accept just about any argument, as obviously fallacious as they come, just to suppress their guilt as they greedily gorge themselves on free entertainment. It makes me sick how morally and intellectually bankrupt piracy can make people. If they're sick of people judging them, they might as well just stop. If they don't want to support Big Media, then they don't have to. The mistake comes when they start thinking they are entitled to the seat off other people's brows.
I don't mind piracy in moderation. There's nothing morally wrong with trying before buying or downloading digital copies of works you already own, provided you have the strength of will to draw the line. I used to pirate a little, but I gave it up quickly when I realised I was also making up these lame excuses for my habit. [/Rant]
today we see copyright being used by PUBLISHERS to control the artists and restrict users. Copyright as it is today is immoral, and no one has an obligation to recognize it as legitimate.
Let's transplant this argument to check whether it's valid, shall we?
"Today we see guns being used by CRIMINALS to kill people. Using guns today is immoral." "Today we see oxygen being used by RAPISTS to keep them conscious while they rape people. Using oxygen is immoral." "Today we see bad logic being used by IDIOTS to cause people to believe something obviously false. Using bad logic is immoral."
Needs a bit of work, huh? I think you need to at least show that the only uses for it are immoral uses to start (although, some people here might think that more than that is required). To do so, you would have to prove that using the GPL is immoral, which may receive some opposition by even the most ardent copyright antiponents.
... and it no longer holds any water. Holywood is not forcing me to watch 3D. Holywood is not actually forcing me to watch anything, but even out of its offerings, it is still providing a 2D alternative for almost every single movie it produces.
Look at Avatar. It was made specifically for 3D. Do you think James Cameron, 3D's premier fanboy moviemaker, wanted Avatar screening in 2D? Well, I can't find an article to back me up, but I would imagine that he would prefer to force people not to watch it in 2D, and that it was the studios who wanted the 2D alternative. It's consistent with their approach to offer and heavily market 3D, but not actually force it upon people.
Rational people generally are in the minority like that.
...so says everyone who is committed to acting irrationally on a given issue. The difficulty lies, of course, in the fact that rational people who are in the minority also tend to say the same thing. So, how do we tell the difference? We ask for rational justifications for their beliefs. If they can't provide one, or provide one with faulty rationale, then we settle for them being irrational.
So, what rational argument do you have for believing that buying the console means that you can do what you like? Before you answer, bear in mind that paying for something is not a sufficient condition for ownership (otherwise I would own the DVDs I borrow from the video store).
Actually, one of the big advantages of bluray is that the disks are considerably hardier than dvds. A friend of mine is a big fan of bluray, and he probably touts this benefit most of all, since he too was sick of his CDs and DVDs decaying. Myself, I don't especially care what you do, but I thought you might want to know your options.
Slashdot Mirror
How can they hope to live up to the masters of the genre, like the great Uwe Boll?
Interesting. What would be your solution to medical research, i.e. something that's a little less frivolous than consumer electronics? Would you be fine with them packing up and going home if they can't continue their research? Even at the expense of human lives?
What's an "enemy of freedom"? Is it someone who opposes some forms of freedom? Is someone who is opposed to murder an "enemy of freedom", since he is opposes the freedom to murder? Or is it freedoms that you approve of?
Certainly freedom of speech appears to be on the "don't touch" list. Is it evil to protect privacy? To protect bank accounts and credit cards? I am highly sceptical that you truly believe that we are better off in a world that highly discourages medical innovation and that considers the protection of privacy immoral.
Freedom of choice, you evil enemy of freedom! Some speech rights should definitely be inalienable, but taking that principle to its hyperbolic extreme is both impractical and oppressive. What is freedom, if not the ability to act, harming only those who consent, without fear of reprisal? By making it impossible to temporarily and voluntarily waive certain non-essential rights, you are, by definition, curtailing their freedom.
I see what you're saying, and I see that you see what I was saying (unlike the OP). I like to be careful around this topic, since it's filled with misinformation. You see, there's an entire ideology called Libertarianism (perhaps you've heard of it) that believes that the government should never be given the benefit of the doubt, and that when there is any lack of, or ambiguity in, information about the government's behaviour, the worst should automatically be assumed.
That works fine for maintaining a free society, but I start to get worried when people start muddling conjecture with fact. I get even more worried when they start arguing from conjecture rather than fact. They convince others of the conjecture's truth, simply by making sound like established fact. That's why I felt the need to respond when the OP claimed loudly that he had proof that the US government's corruption was spreading (notice the implicit use of the "fact" that the US government is corrupt, which has not been properly established to my knowledge).
So, in the spirit of sorting conjecture from fact, any chance you could dig up some of these documents? I would like to see them and judge for myself exactly what they prove. It's nothing personal, but I see there is a possibility that you, or the people who explained the gist of them to you, read them under the assumption of wrongdoing, and in doing so, exaggerated any actual evidence of wrongdoing. So, yeah, if you could dig up any of those documents, I would appreciate it.
I do.
I don't. There's a distinction here that you're not comprehending. I'm not saying this is what actually happened, I'm saying that everything we've observed is consistent with this happening. So, simply from our observations, there is no proof that you talked about.
I'm sorry, but you're frothy-mouthed zealotry is causing you to make the assumptions, not just about what is happening out there, but also about what I'm saying.
How is one government offering to help another government "interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people"? It's an offer that the US government is making to the NZ government, which has the choice to accept or reject it. If the US offered financial aid to disaster-affected areas, would this counstrued similarly? Of course not. What makes them different? Of course, you would say:
But, in my scenario, the government is not acting at the behest of private interests; it's working for the good of the public. Again, I claim that this scenario is consistent with what we've seen. Since, there is an alternative scenario which fits observations, you cannot possibly have proved, using these observations alone, that this scenario could not be true, and that your scenario is necessarily true.
Um, the US is offering to foot the bill.
Also, be careful using that logic. You could use it to argue that school education is a frivolous luxury at this time.
While being deliberately obtuse can be fun, it's a lot more productive to refine the GP's statement to something that can't be attacked so trivially. Perhaps something along the lines of:
It doesn't roll off the tongue so easily, but it at least covers all of your examples. It also is a lot more difficult to argue against.
Why? Because a book publisher discovered that a single book had a sales spike after giving it away on the internet? Generalising it over all artists in all forms of art, entertainment, and science seems a bit of a leap. It seems that artists are similarly sceptical. Exactly how many successful artists have actually found that their business has been helped by providing their works for free? How many formerly unsuccessful artists have actually created success on the back of this business model? Compared to the number that haven't, the numbers are insignificant. You might as well convince me that a handful of people have survived lightning strikes, so I should carry a lightning rod and stand barefoot on a metal grate in a thunderstorm.
However, I get the impression that this "evidence" is not the reason why you believe sharing should be legal. After all, if you base your criteria primarily on money, then how can you claim to be superior to the rest money-obsessed, money-worshiping society? So, arguing money is not going to make a dent in your belief that sharing should be legal. Rather, it would take some convincing that allowing sharing is no more ideal for you and other consumers than our current system. It would take some convincing that unrestricted sharing, far from being analogous to sharing candles, is actually something more akin to depleting a resource, despite its superficial appearance. I suppose I would also have to account for why indie artists manage to keep in business accounting for sharing, and why some publishers have noticed spikes in their sales when they release it free on the internet.
Essentially, the meat of my argument is (and has been for a very long time) that copyright is voluntary, and so removing simply removes choice and flexibility, not only for the artists, but for us as well. Every artist who wants to release their works for free (and who hasn't needed financial assistance from Big Media in order to record and distribute), has the opportunity to do so. And why wouldn't they? If what you say is true, and the artists benefit financially from such business models, then whether the artists prioritises getting fans or getting money, it's a win-win situation. Why isn't everyone releasing in this way?
The answer is that what you say is not true: artists are, by and large, worse off financially using these business models. This means that any benefits we obtain from forcing these business models on artists comes at their expense. Of course, nobody is forcing them to create or distribute, and you cannot be surprised if some decide to pack up and leave. Perhaps Brittany Spears and her ilk might have the popularity and finances to run it out, but any full-time artist
I'm sure if you periodically transmit the message "No law enforcement", nobody will police it.
I wouldn't exactly call it proof. The actions are perfectly consistent with a country whose economy is significantly supported by exporting intellectual property. If that were the case, then this move would be in the best interests of the US population.
Actually, the questions posed are more rhetorical than anything. I was more generally talking about the OP's argument, rather than simply responding to it. The OP was claiming that leaking is only considered wrong because of corporate 'brainwashing'. I didn't present arguments as to why this is not the case, but I did outline why I thought that his arguments on that particular point were worthless.
As for what Apple actually should do, I think the discussion is pointless. We should be discussing what we should do. Apple responds to the shareholders, who respond generally to what we will and will not pay for. Their purpose is to make money, and we are the ones who provide it. Should we boycott goods made in China? I don't think it's feasible to expect a full boycott, since so much of what we use is made in China. Rather, given a choice between goods, try not to choose the one made in China.
On the other hand, is it morally justified to attempt to wound a large country's economy, and kill the jobs of a people who are already suffering, just because of the behaviour of their government? I haven't really made up my mind on that one yet.
And I'll say it again, no I'm not. I'm not talking about China. It doesn't even enter into the points I was making. The only one that comes close is my berating the OP for his imposing of his views upon the west.
Now I'm sorry, but I'm kind of sick of people trying to convince me of a point that I don't contend about a subject that doesn't particularly interest me, so I'm not going to read the rest of your comment.
No. What I want is evidence that every person who believes leaking is morally wrong, do so primarily because of corporate influence. That is, had the person access to all the relevant facts, that they would have sided with you on the issue. This premise would validate your argument, and it is the implicit assumption that this premise holds that gives your argument the power to convcince people. I cannot see any reason why it would be true, but if you can prove it to me (or demonstrate its likely or approximate truth), then I will concede that your argument is sound (or at least, not entirely worthless).
There you go. I have stated clearly exactly what it would take to change my mind on the issue at hand, and therefore win the argument. Try getting that from an discussion on slashdot!
As far as I can tell, it is a synonym for 'convincing', used to ridicule people for holding an opinion, without addressing the truth of the opinion itself. You are welcome, of course, to show me otherwise.
You weren't expected to know this, but I also don't accept hypocricy as a valid argument against a position. It too is just an ad hominem attack on the person holding an argument, rather than actually dealing with the truth of the argument itself. Sure, there may be something morally wrong with the people who engage in hypocricy, but it has no bearing on the truth of what they preach. For example, a father might tell his child to stop skipping classes and graduate from high school, even though he skipped classes and dropped out when he was his child's age. Does this make it bad advice? No. All it means is that the father cannot easily take the moral high ground on the issue.
So, the fact that you pointed out various people in positions of power who have engaged in leaking does not pursuade me one way or the other that leaking is wrong or not. Just like if they engaged in murder, it would not pursuade me that murder was morally justified.
It's interesting the difference in viewpoint here. We read the same argument (with ill-defined premises and conclusions), and came up with two distinct reasons why it was supposed to be convincing, which reveal two distinct ways of looking at the argument. The way that I see it, it's not a very constructive argument. It's purpose is to ridicule the opposing side and the neutrals so that the only respectible side to take is the same side as the OP. The way that you see it (to the best of my ability to guess what that way actually is from your comments), it's supposed to be something constructive; to spark people to make a change in the world beyond their opinion. You don't find it convincing because you don't think that it fulfills its purpose, whereas I don't think that it's convincing because I don't believe he's successfully demonstrated that the other side is wrong.
I suppose that multiple interpretations is not the worst thing you get when your arguments based more on emotional appeal, rather than rationale.
Oh, please then, explain to everyone how the existence of factory workers is even the slightest bit "inconvenient" to either of my points. No really, go ahead. Come on internet tough guy, make my day.
I swear, we've gotta be more careful when talking about China, or someone is going to put an eye out with all this knee-jerking. I come out talking about bad logic (as I often do), and so many idiots manage to somehow conclude that I'm prioritising ipads over human rights atrocities. The irony would be funny if it weren't so depressing.
If I had to guess, I'd say it had probably something to do with the mods realising that this is not even close to what I was saying. This probably stemmed from them reading my post, comprehending it, and thinking before jerking their knees (assuming they jerked their knees at all).
I was not prioritising Apple over anybody or anything, rather I was pointing out that Apple's position had absolutely no priority whatsoever in the OP's argument. In fact, it's not so much the fact that it's Apple's problem, rather it is the problem (whosever it is) that lead to the way things are now (specifically, regarding "leaks" and their being illegal/wrong/whatever). Nothing can change if we ignore the source of the problem. Perhaps the solution is, as I suggested, for Apple (or anyone else) not to release hardware in general? Perhaps that is the solution that is, all things considered, the least of all evils? I don't know, but I'm damn sure that nothing will get done with completely nonconstructive criticism.
As for the factories, they don't really enter into my point at all. They don't enter into my argument, nor in the specific point of the argument to which I was responding. I'm not ignoring them, I'm not making a statement that they are more or less important than anything in particular, and I'm certainly not saying the OP was wrong about them. In fact, I would say the OP made a compelling case that these factories are morally bad (partially because he actually demonstrated they were bad, not just that the people who believe they aren't bad are morally bad). I didn't mention them for the same reason you don't mention them when discussing what to cook for dinner: because the factories aren't relevant to the particular point you're trying to get across.
Agreed.
The EULA would disagree. It is an agreement that you need to "agree" to in order to use the software, but the terms of the agreement could extend to hardware, if not further.
Well, we could talk about whether or not terms in the (software) EULA that pertain to hardware are legally enforceable or not, but I don't really know much about that. My law student friend told me once that in Australia, where we live, a contract (including an EULA) is only enforceable when both parties understand the terms of the agreement, and so an EULA cannot be enforced without the user actually bothering to take the time to read it. In more natural terms, I would agree that it is not possible to agree to something without first understanding it. In that respect, to me, all EULAs are not true agreements, rather a set of conditions by which users may optionally be bound. I only wish that the courts in other countries would agree.
I agree. What more can I say? :-)
And you have succeeded admirably!
Well then, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am actually a conglomerate of a million monkeys on a million typewriters, with a panel of human editors, who's job it is to edinbfn234 29qwdjjna;w ubeqwruo ruj sdfh
So, what is your solution for Apple's dilemma? They're trying to release their product, and not be ripped to pieces by cheap chinese knockoffs from companies who never had to eat the costs of design and R&D. Should the government subsidise them for their losses? Should they just refrain from releasing hardware in the future? Should we allow people to voluntarily enter into contracts to not talk about certain aspects of their working life? Without some actual solution to the problems that arose to present this situation, you might as well argue that time travel is a moral imperitive; you may make a pursuasive argument, but the argument itself will produce no positive change, and the argument is practically worthless.
Also, on a more personal note, I find arguments like this leave a very unpleasant taste in my mouth. It seems that the source of pursuasion comes not from demonstration that your position is right (or that their position is wrong), but from making people feel uncomfortable for believing the opposing side. If I believe that leaking private secrets is immoral, you are trying to implant the idea that this is because I have been brainwashed by companies, thus making me feel stupid or used for that belief, instead of convincing me that the belief is wrong. Who knows? Perhaps this idea that companies are implanting in our minds is 100% correct? Nothing in your argument addresses this, rather it preys off the ad hominem fallacy: that if someone as bad as corporations want us to believe it to be true, then it must be false.
OK, so what makes you think that you have purchased your console? You paid money for it, but as we both agree, you can pay for things that you don't subsequently own.
It seems that the way you justify that conclusion is that you paid money in a store like you would if you were to buy anything else, without agreements. I suppose that is a good enough reason, if you don't agree with the EULA. If you do, then you are under an agreement, and the case could easily be made that you cannot do what you like to the console.
I should also point out that the inference that "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is possibly fallacious. It depends on what definition of ownership you use. For example, if I buy a house, most people would say that I own it. Yet, I need to get council approvement if want to, say, build an extra five stories on top of it. If the inference were valid, then logically, I would not own the house, because I could not do what I liked to it. I'm happy to say that I do not own the house I paid for (i.e. define ownership around this inference), just so long as we are clear.
Or, you could just ignore my pedantry. I enjoy picking apart those who deem themselves the rational side. More often than not, they don't have a rationale; it's mostly emotion driving their opinion. Of the people who do have a rationale, it often has flaws in it (which I can respect; at least they tried).
I never claimed that I believed that, nor did I claim to be rational. :-)
Round 2! Let's examine this one:
Where, in copyright law, does it say that giant media conglomerates are the only ones who can use copyright? Someone had better send out a memo to all those indie artists quick-snap, not to mention those GPL contributors!
I also should point out that, under current copyright law (which you pointedly specified), copyright terms expire, and also fair use is part of the law, so taking derivations from works is fine, so long as you don't use more than 10% of the work, or whatever the precedented limit is.
Almost everything released today cannot be ruled out, under current copyright law, as derivative. That's because "being inspired from" is something very different to "being derived from in the context of copyright law".
All of my poking holes in your hypotheses aside, I still don't accept your argument as valid. You can't really argue from hyperbole. For example, take an analogous argument:
"If everyone ate every piece of food they could find, everyone would become incredibly fat, until food ran out and everyone would starve. Therefore, eating food is clearly immoral, and incapable of attaining the goal to which it aspires (i.e. satisfying hunger; keeping the population alive)."
All you've done is proven that using copyright excessively doesn't work (immoral requires further argument). What about in moderation? What in your argument addresses using copyright in moderation?
[Rant] Of course, it's not going to matter, is it? You'll just get +4/+5 insightful like the OP, despite your clearly fallacious argument. Why? Because both you and him tell pirates exactly what they want to hear. Pirates suck at Big Media's teat, shout out that the milk tastes foul, and argue that if Big Media didn't want them to suck at their teat, then they shouldn't have made their milk so foul (for all the sense that that makes). They will accept just about any argument, as obviously fallacious as they come, just to suppress their guilt as they greedily gorge themselves on free entertainment. It makes me sick how morally and intellectually bankrupt piracy can make people. If they're sick of people judging them, they might as well just stop. If they don't want to support Big Media, then they don't have to. The mistake comes when they start thinking they are entitled to the seat off other people's brows.
I don't mind piracy in moderation. There's nothing morally wrong with trying before buying or downloading digital copies of works you already own, provided you have the strength of will to draw the line. I used to pirate a little, but I gave it up quickly when I realised I was also making up these lame excuses for my habit. [/Rant]
Ding ding ding ding! Awaiting round 3...
Let's transplant this argument to check whether it's valid, shall we?
"Today we see guns being used by CRIMINALS to kill people. Using guns today is immoral."
"Today we see oxygen being used by RAPISTS to keep them conscious while they rape people. Using oxygen is immoral."
"Today we see bad logic being used by IDIOTS to cause people to believe something obviously false. Using bad logic is immoral."
Needs a bit of work, huh? I think you need to at least show that the only uses for it are immoral uses to start (although, some people here might think that more than that is required). To do so, you would have to prove that using the GPL is immoral, which may receive some opposition by even the most ardent copyright antiponents.
In short, sqrt(2), you're being irrational :-D
... and it no longer holds any water. Holywood is not forcing me to watch 3D. Holywood is not actually forcing me to watch anything, but even out of its offerings, it is still providing a 2D alternative for almost every single movie it produces.
Look at Avatar. It was made specifically for 3D. Do you think James Cameron, 3D's premier fanboy moviemaker, wanted Avatar screening in 2D? Well, I can't find an article to back me up, but I would imagine that he would prefer to force people not to watch it in 2D, and that it was the studios who wanted the 2D alternative. It's consistent with their approach to offer and heavily market 3D, but not actually force it upon people.
...so says everyone who is committed to acting irrationally on a given issue. The difficulty lies, of course, in the fact that rational people who are in the minority also tend to say the same thing. So, how do we tell the difference? We ask for rational justifications for their beliefs. If they can't provide one, or provide one with faulty rationale, then we settle for them being irrational.
So, what rational argument do you have for believing that buying the console means that you can do what you like? Before you answer, bear in mind that paying for something is not a sufficient condition for ownership (otherwise I would own the DVDs I borrow from the video store).
Pull your head out of your ass, fuckface. A moderated message board is as bad IF NOT WORSE!
:-D
Actually, one of the big advantages of bluray is that the disks are considerably hardier than dvds. A friend of mine is a big fan of bluray, and he probably touts this benefit most of all, since he too was sick of his CDs and DVDs decaying. Myself, I don't especially care what you do, but I thought you might want to know your options.