...until they leave school, at which you have no contact with them, and thus no means of control. What was your point again?
Critical thinking isn't taught because there's a limited time we have these kids to force-feed them all the knowledge we deem necessary in the real world, and some kids have a lot of trouble with it (they take up a lot of time). We expect them to develop critical thinking from real life, from their parents, from their friends, and eventually from their lovers, their co-workers, their college room mate. Basically, from one of the thousands of people they will have contact with over their lives. It's all but a statistical certainty that they'll have their opinions challenged at some point, and for most, it will happen while they're in school, if not before.
If you challenge a person based on X topic-you're-heavily-interested-in, it's very possible they may not have thought too much about it, and they may not be aware of a controversy surrounding it. That, in no way, implies they are not capable of critical thinking, only that nobody has ever alerted them to the issue (or they've repressed the feelings of unease). There are typically other issues, perhaps only private matters, where they've had an argument in which they've had to critically think.
Basically, your "unthinking, uncritical people" are a myth, a figment of the paranoid used, ironically, as an instrument of control (to spread such paranoia).
I think you missed the point. It's not so much that we should be mourning the brutal conquering of the native americans (or, since I live in australia, the aborigines), it's that we shouldn't be so hypocritical about refusing to let others into the country, especially if it is in expense of their life. If anything, it should be in expense of our life.
This will work for EA for the same reason why they can sell DLC which is probably developed at the same time as the game, or considered "cut" content released in the DLC. It will work because impulse gamers DON'T CARE, and will willingly pay money for this shit. We are going down the nickel and dime road of gaming because of apathy and ignorance from the vast majority of consumers who don't know any better and can't be bothered to educate themselves.
I don't see what the big deal about DLC is. The game companies release a game, you can pay to extend the game if you want. There's nothing to say the company would have released DLC with the game, assuming they didn't have the option, or if they did distribute the DLC with the game, that they wouldn't charge the full price of the game + the price of the DLC. The idea now is that gamers get a choice of how much of the game they want to buy and play, and are required to pay less upfront (relative, of course, to the strength of the game market, which is currently declining). If people don't think a game is worth buying, either because it's too expensive or just not complete enough, then it won't matter how many DLCs there are, the game will flop financially.
I guess the fear is that these will be used as an excuse to raise prices, but I would say that, given the current state of the games market, price rises are inevitable, and it's probably not a bad idea to spread them out a little. You know, by shortening games (because not everyone wants to play a long, long game), and providing extensions for those who want them.
What is this "retail establishment?" I looked at www.retailestablishment.com, but I couldn't find anything floppy for sale. Or anything at all for that matter.
Well, the pulling power of games is waning (global financial crisis and all that). This is the necessary round of belt-tightening, but trying not to make it sound like belt-tightening.
Then you didn't look for more than thirty seconds.
I looked for 5:32. I timed it.
Bullshit. But I guess you'll say your got a degree in Psichology...
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
Read the Bern treaty, for example, and you'll see it allows its signatories to include exceptions to allow the making of non-profit, private copies. P2P clearly falls in that category.
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
Research the origin of the term and realize you're misusing it. Then come and admit how wrong you were.
As for your method, I don't think I have to tell you what I think about it, and that I'm not going to stop making use of my rights (yes, you read that just fine, I did say "rights") because of what you say.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
It's still bullshit. But that doesn't matter, since the probability is about zero.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
Again, you ignore the fact that his fans are indeed paying him.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
Also, add the rest of the payments that the fans make (concerts, actually buying the album because they first downloaded it and they liked it, etc).
Also, falls under the same argument. Buying a T-shirt at the concert entitles you to a T-shirt and a concert (assuming you actually paid for the ticket). I does not give you full access to the bands catalogue.
Again, to compare it to a paycheque, it would be like an employer deciding every other week that the previous week's paycheque was enough, with no oversight. He pays you for a week's work, he is entitled only for a week work. Not two, not three, but one.
Of course, you could probably survive with every second week's work going unpaid. You wouldn't be h
I think that by now it should be pretty clear that I did not use the word "troll" as an argumentum ad hominem, but because, in my eyes, you truly behaved as one, claiming that you hadn't made a comment which you in fact made.
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Whatever, letting this drag on any longer serves no purpose, so I'll be more than happy to let it go if you do the same.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
If you knew anything about the topic, you'd realize there's no trick to enforce that.
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly premeditated and performed. This doesn't just apply to murder, but to a whole host of other crimes.
Does this mean murder is unenforceable? Yes and no. On one hand, our enforcement is reliant on luck and the stupidity of the killer, so you could argue that murder is unenforceable. On the other, most people don't murder, even if they really, really hate someone. Something is making a dent, and that something is a combination of morals, and a fear that you'll fuck up and get caught for a lengthy prison sentence, or even a death sentence.
Does this mean that the murder laws don't work, and thus we should scrap them? Probably not. Even though it is immoral, we still like our police to have the authority to hunt these people when they can. What it does mean is that we should rely
That said, you have resorted to a pityful argumentum ad hominem, which I'm ignoring because I don't need to lower myself to your level like that.
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
As for the model being obsolete... It's "utterly, completely obvious". I mean, it's based on a monopoly that can't be enforced any longer.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
It's based on selling goods that can be mass-produced with no loss of quality.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately. Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
It's based on something people no longer want (at least not under the conditions imposed by artists/labels).
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
It's based on screwing your customers, and customers don't take well to being screwed by the people they're feeding with their money.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
The rest of your message is nothing but nonsense
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
Look, you're very adept at insulting your opponent, but your actual arguments need some extending. I suggest you read through the rest of post again. I assure you, it is not nonsense. If you truly care about your viewpoint, I suggest you actually read through it, and find a convincing rebuttal to each point.
I've concluded also that much of your post is nonsense, but at least, it's popular nonsense (so you weren't the only one seduced into thinking this way), and some of it has a superficial reflection in reality (the truth is often a lot more counter-intuitive when it comes to copyright). Particularly that bit at the end. Piracy doesn't have to be illegal; it's simply the copying of people's work without their permission. Even if the law is different between our countries, the action, the consequences, and the morality of it is still the same.
Well, if you do, then you're painfully mistaken. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes of using Google to find several studies that prove you wrong.
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
(please refrain from labelling it piracy, it's not piracy, in fact it's not even illegal in most places
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
As for how likely people are to buy music of the can't copy it... I'd say the chance is close to zero (or even zero for most of what they copy). Either way, your argument that the probability multiplied by the price equals the loss that copy produces is utter BS.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
And even if it were true, it's not "unfair". The law allows it, and the artist knew that before publishing his work, so I really don't see how that's unfair.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
You simply do not know how that business works over here, if you did you'd agree with me.
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
So, to keep it short: no, nothing of that is lost revenue to anyone.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, and making something that the public doesn't want. In this case, it's because the public doesn't feel like paying.
In fact, it could even be an increase of revenue (what I don't spend on albums, I spend on live shows, which by the way get the artist a alot more money than selling records; and most people do the same, as you'd know if you had researched the topic even a little bit).
I do know, or at least, I have heard that. That, of course, only applies to artists signed with labels. Indie artists subsist more on CD sales.
Of course, in my eyes, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the artists are getting some
No, you're right. My bad. I did say that. I didn't mean it; I meant to say "provide you with unfairly cheap services, at their own expense, without repercussions".
So, now that we've established you're a liar, I shall not entertain your trolling any further
Jesus Christ, do you really find what I'm saying so repulsive, so offensive, that you have to find a way to dismiss it so quickly and completely? I mean, fuck, is this the way you deal with anyone who disagrees with you? This "strategy" is one step down from putting your hands over your ears and shouting "La, la, la, I can't hear you!", since at least the shouting strategy doesn't involve mud-slinging.
What you established was that either I'm a liar (in that I knew that what I said was false, and said it anyway to mislead), or that I made a mistake. Naturally, you couldn't wait to make the distinction. You had to eliminate my arguments some how, and quickly, because you couldn't find a logical basis for attacking them. You make me sick to my stomach.
I think we should remove the troll mod. I know it's your safety blanket, that helps you keep your precious little (very little) mind safe and blissfully ignorant from the rhetorical demons out there, but it might be time for you to grow the fuck up and start either attacking the arguments (as opposed to the person delivering them), or even better, actually get an opinion you can defend!
As for the rest of your nonsense, call me when you have actually seen the business from the inside and can accept that no, artists (and please note I'm not referring to any big names here, since those do indeed have a choice) usually don't have that much of a choice.
Argh! Why do I have to explain this over and over again!?
It doesn't matter whether the artist or a company makes the decisions. If it's the artist, then you are depriving them of these choices under this system. If it's the company, then you are depriving them of their choices to generate maximum revenue. Their generation of maximum revenue is through their sales, off of which the artists survive. If you eliminate choice for these companies, then it is akin to depriving the artists of these choice. Instead of depriving the artist personally, you depriving their chosen representative to make these choices for them.
Either way, I think we can now safely come to the conclusion that this proposed system represents, inevitably, less choice for artists.
Oh, and when you can back your claims with something better than "it's completely and utterly obvious"
I did.
shortly after you actually understand the point being made in the message to which you were originally replying (that being that when your business model is obsolete you either change it or quit, but don't try to screw your customers)
Okay, prove that the business model is obsolete. Show that there's a superior business model out there, and we won't hesitate to move to it. I'll give you a hint: better for you does not mean better for everyone.
That's what legoburner was doing in his original post. He was finding a business model, in the hope that it would prove the existing one obsolete. I showed, over and over again, that not only this business model was not superior to the copyright model, but that it was hardly even comparable. So, no, it was his business model that was obsolete on arrival, superseded by the current system.
Now, the problem is, that since nobody has managed to find a system the obsoletes the current one, the argument "change it or quit" no longer makes much sense. What are they supposed to do, if there are no viable changes? Well, I suppose, what they should do is quit. Not just one artist, but almost every artist will be encouraged to quit! We really, truly, do not want this. To put it in terms you can understand, without these artists, there will be nothin
Did you really, truly think that non-profit copying for private use is hurting artists, considering that those artists receive money to compensate the (most likely non-existing) losses that those copies produce, even if no copies are made?
Yes, I really do. In aggregate, copying really does hurt the artists.
It's not productive or sensible to think of a copy as a "lost sale" or not. We really need to look at it in terms of how likely you would have been to buy the music had you no access to pirated music. The probability that you would have bought it multiplied by the price produces the amount of money you're depriving unfairly from the artist.
Unfortunately, this probability is extremely difficult to discern. If you have a large library of music that you've pirated, it's extremely easy to say you would never have bought something when you have so much more music to fall back on. So, it's entirely possible for you to pirate 1000 albums, to reasonably say you would never have bought any of them individually, but had you never pirated, chances are you would have bought 20-30 of them. This is lost revenue to the artists. And just because you are stealing a small amount from a lot of people does not make the stealing justified.
It's a fantasy that people buy what they want, and only pirate what they don't, and artists do get hurt. Even with the small trickle of compensation money.
There's a common fallacy, which is that being against certain groups means that you are automatically Racist, just because those groups hide behind a given religion/race.
Think about it. If, for whatever reason, you happen to be against a certain group, and that group is defined by race (which, for our purposes, includes religion), unless you have an even lower opinion of your own race, then you believe your race to be superior to the other race. That's the definition of racism. It doesn't matter how much you can justify your beliefs, it's the definition of racism.
And, good or bad, once the definition is satisfied, a whole lot of (highly deserved) stigma comes flooding with it.
Anyone has the right to hate the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the Communists, or the Bankers, or any other political/economical group. We can disagree with their ideas, and consider their group good/bad/dangerous/whatever and judge their actions.
Well, the stigma from racism comes from the idea of (unfair) prejudice. By unfair, I mean that we associate traits with certain groups, with no guarantee that the individual members themselves have these traits.
So, for example, calling a Jew "money-grubbing" is an unfair prejudice, because not all Jews are "money-grubbing". My father (also Jewish), for example, works for public health and is sometimes sent to seminars overseas. Even though he is often given thousands of dollars to spend at a fancy hotel and eat handsomely every meal, he still finds the cheapest backpackers and eats Weet-Bix for breakfast, simply because he can't stand the thought of burning through the taxpayers' money. He clearly isn't the "money-grubbing" sort, but that doesn't prevent racist people from forming such prejudices.
Compare this with the not unfair prejudice that libertarians favour free speech. It's practically part of the definition of libertarianism. So, if you hate the act of favouring free speech, then you would be justified in singling out libertarians.
If you're looking at religions and races, you have to be careful. The problem is that in a vast majority of cases, the claims levied at religions and races have at most very weak correlations to the actual people as part of the race, and thus is classified as unfair prejudices. If, however, your problem is that you hate the belief of God (as in you can't even stand to be near someone who believes in God), then that would count as a not unfair prejudice.
But if that group (that you are against because of political, economical, social or otherwise valid, non-racist reasons) has a particular religious/race, then you can't hate them, can't question them, can't be against them, or you are racist.
Well, for one, as I was saying, racism has nothing to do with reasons; you are a racist regardless of the reason. The question is, do you deserve the stigma associated with it? That does depend on your reasons. I guess the question is, what kind of political, economic, or social constants would Jews inevitably be associated with? What are the constants of Judaism? There's a large variety of people in just about any religion, so be careful.
I hate the fucking jews, but I only hate those that actually belong to the sociopolitical group that identifies itself as "Judaism" ... So, if you are a member of a group that is responsible for so many crimes from mass murder to brainwashing, and that group keeps buying politicians to shape the laws at their own will, I have a problem with that group, and I have a problem with you.
Here's a question: if you never met, or otherwise communicated with me, and I said I am a Jew, without any other qualifiers, what do you think about me? If I said I was a Jew, and that I was rich and working to shape the laws to my own will, would you think of me differently? Finally, what if I said I was just a regular person, no mention of whet
You can repeat it if you want, doesn't make it any less false.
However, adding to the building body of arguments for it, will... not make it any less false, I admit, but hopefully it will make others less wrong after they read it.
For starters, you don't even get that nobody is forcing artists to provide anything for free
Did I say that? No, wait, I believe what I said was that their so called fans are forcing them into an inferior business model, which would be true if the GP got his way. How do I know it's inferior? Because a) it's completely and utterly obvious, b) it removes any choice the artist had (restrictions on business models can never lead to a better solution, only the potential restriction of the better solutions), and c) because precious few has tried and made it work. This tells me fairly conclusively that this option, as a business model, is barely even worth exploring as an artist, let alone blindly entrusting with our culture.
So, no there's no formal expectation of free stuff (unless you're stupid enough to expect free distributable copies of recorded music), but nevertheless, there is an expectation that artists will deliver more for a lot less.
in fact we're paying them even for services they don't provide
Such as?
Second, you assume all artists have a choice
Did I? Deary me, I'm such a ditz sometimes. Where did I assume such a thing? You might have to help me a bit and point out the specific phrase(s) for me. I can't seem to find them anywhere!
Artists do have choices. They can decide to sign with a label or stay indie, even though deciding the latter can be tough financially. From there, the artist/label can choose a multitude of ways to distribute the music, to promote the music, to tour, etc. They can choose whether they want to make money exclusively off touring, or they can choose to make money off recording as well. They can choose to take a break from touring to work on their music.
Any and all choices of any relevance are removed under the GP's proposed mass oppression and mollycoddling of artists. The choices are restricted to where to tour next and when to retire. It doesn't matter if some artists are forced into a particular pattern, because this proposed scheme will eliminate all choice for those who have choice. And, for those stuck in a particular pattern, that pattern will be a more-or-less optimal business strategy, and thus by eliminating these business strategy, we will essentially force them out of business. That is, the number of choices will drop from 1 to 0, and they become the first casualties of this short-sighted policy.
So, with the increasingly large body of arguments, I will repeat it again: everybody loses. Hopefully, you will either accept this, or refute the arguments supporting it, rather than attacking the rhetorical device of repetition.
Slashdot Mirror
But...
Finally, a correct use of the tag for once!
Don't worry baby. I can consent enough for the both of us!
The fact that people die every day doesn't prevent us from building and staffing hospitals.
...until they leave school, at which you have no contact with them, and thus no means of control. What was your point again?
Critical thinking isn't taught because there's a limited time we have these kids to force-feed them all the knowledge we deem necessary in the real world, and some kids have a lot of trouble with it (they take up a lot of time). We expect them to develop critical thinking from real life, from their parents, from their friends, and eventually from their lovers, their co-workers, their college room mate. Basically, from one of the thousands of people they will have contact with over their lives. It's all but a statistical certainty that they'll have their opinions challenged at some point, and for most, it will happen while they're in school, if not before.
If you challenge a person based on X topic-you're-heavily-interested-in, it's very possible they may not have thought too much about it, and they may not be aware of a controversy surrounding it. That, in no way, implies they are not capable of critical thinking, only that nobody has ever alerted them to the issue (or they've repressed the feelings of unease). There are typically other issues, perhaps only private matters, where they've had an argument in which they've had to critically think.
Basically, your "unthinking, uncritical people" are a myth, a figment of the paranoid used, ironically, as an instrument of control (to spread such paranoia).
Where's BadAnalogyGuy? I hear he's an expert in such matters.
In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c. Your humility amazes me sir!
That, or you're just incredibly stingy. ;-)
Buh-dum ching!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Neither. I'm saying that, if all things were fair, we would be conquered in the same way.
Things are not, and currently, I'm fine with that. ;-)
I think you missed the point. It's not so much that we should be mourning the brutal conquering of the native americans (or, since I live in australia, the aborigines), it's that we shouldn't be so hypocritical about refusing to let others into the country, especially if it is in expense of their life. If anything, it should be in expense of our life.
But conspiracy theories easy the pain!
I'm inbred, you insensitive clod!
I don't see what the big deal about DLC is. The game companies release a game, you can pay to extend the game if you want. There's nothing to say the company would have released DLC with the game, assuming they didn't have the option, or if they did distribute the DLC with the game, that they wouldn't charge the full price of the game + the price of the DLC. The idea now is that gamers get a choice of how much of the game they want to buy and play, and are required to pay less upfront (relative, of course, to the strength of the game market, which is currently declining). If people don't think a game is worth buying, either because it's too expensive or just not complete enough, then it won't matter how many DLCs there are, the game will flop financially.
I guess the fear is that these will be used as an excuse to raise prices, but I would say that, given the current state of the games market, price rises are inevitable, and it's probably not a bad idea to spread them out a little. You know, by shortening games (because not everyone wants to play a long, long game), and providing extensions for those who want them.
What is this "retail establishment?" I looked at www.retailestablishment.com, but I couldn't find anything floppy for sale. Or anything at all for that matter.
Well, the pulling power of games is waning (global financial crisis and all that). This is the necessary round of belt-tightening, but trying not to make it sound like belt-tightening.
Yes!!! Oh god yes!
I looked for 5:32. I timed it.
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-as-copyright-infringement.html
Yes, I admit how wrong you were.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
Also, falls under the same argument. Buying a T-shirt at the concert entitles you to a T-shirt and a concert (assuming you actually paid for the ticket). I does not give you full access to the bands catalogue.
Again, to compare it to a paycheque, it would be like an employer deciding every other week that the previous week's paycheque was enough, with no oversight. He pays you for a week's work, he is entitled only for a week work. Not two, not three, but one.
Of course, you could probably survive with every second week's work going unpaid. You wouldn't be h
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly premeditated and performed. This doesn't just apply to murder, but to a whole host of other crimes.
Does this mean murder is unenforceable? Yes and no. On one hand, our enforcement is reliant on luck and the stupidity of the killer, so you could argue that murder is unenforceable. On the other, most people don't murder, even if they really, really hate someone. Something is making a dent, and that something is a combination of morals, and a fear that you'll fuck up and get caught for a lengthy prison sentence, or even a death sentence.
Does this mean that the murder laws don't work, and thus we should scrap them? Probably not. Even though it is immoral, we still like our police to have the authority to hunt these people when they can. What it does mean is that we should rely
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately. Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
Look, you're very adept at insulting your opponent, but your actual arguments need some extending. I suggest you read through the rest of post again. I assure you, it is not nonsense. If you truly care about your viewpoint, I suggest you actually read through it, and find a convincing rebuttal to each point.
I've concluded also that much of your post is nonsense, but at least, it's popular nonsense (so you weren't the only one seduced into thinking this way), and some of it has a superficial reflection in reality (the truth is often a lot more counter-intuitive when it comes to copyright). Particularly that bit at the end. Piracy doesn't have to be illegal; it's simply the copying of people's work without their permission. Even if the law is different between our countries, the action, the consequences, and the morality of it is still the same.
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, and making something that the public doesn't want. In this case, it's because the public doesn't feel like paying.
I do know, or at least, I have heard that. That, of course, only applies to artists signed with labels. Indie artists subsist more on CD sales.
Of course, in my eyes, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the artists are getting some
How would a comment benefit the racist? What kind of limits are on the term "benefit"?
No, you're right. My bad. I did say that. I didn't mean it; I meant to say "provide you with unfairly cheap services, at their own expense, without repercussions".
Jesus Christ, do you really find what I'm saying so repulsive, so offensive, that you have to find a way to dismiss it so quickly and completely? I mean, fuck, is this the way you deal with anyone who disagrees with you? This "strategy" is one step down from putting your hands over your ears and shouting "La, la, la, I can't hear you!", since at least the shouting strategy doesn't involve mud-slinging.
What you established was that either I'm a liar (in that I knew that what I said was false, and said it anyway to mislead), or that I made a mistake. Naturally, you couldn't wait to make the distinction. You had to eliminate my arguments some how, and quickly, because you couldn't find a logical basis for attacking them. You make me sick to my stomach.
I think we should remove the troll mod. I know it's your safety blanket, that helps you keep your precious little (very little) mind safe and blissfully ignorant from the rhetorical demons out there, but it might be time for you to grow the fuck up and start either attacking the arguments (as opposed to the person delivering them), or even better, actually get an opinion you can defend!
Argh! Why do I have to explain this over and over again!?
It doesn't matter whether the artist or a company makes the decisions. If it's the artist, then you are depriving them of these choices under this system. If it's the company, then you are depriving them of their choices to generate maximum revenue. Their generation of maximum revenue is through their sales, off of which the artists survive. If you eliminate choice for these companies, then it is akin to depriving the artists of these choice. Instead of depriving the artist personally, you depriving their chosen representative to make these choices for them.
Either way, I think we can now safely come to the conclusion that this proposed system represents, inevitably, less choice for artists.
I did.
Okay, prove that the business model is obsolete. Show that there's a superior business model out there, and we won't hesitate to move to it. I'll give you a hint: better for you does not mean better for everyone.
That's what legoburner was doing in his original post. He was finding a business model, in the hope that it would prove the existing one obsolete. I showed, over and over again, that not only this business model was not superior to the copyright model, but that it was hardly even comparable. So, no, it was his business model that was obsolete on arrival, superseded by the current system.
Now, the problem is, that since nobody has managed to find a system the obsoletes the current one, the argument "change it or quit" no longer makes much sense. What are they supposed to do, if there are no viable changes? Well, I suppose, what they should do is quit. Not just one artist, but almost every artist will be encouraged to quit! We really, truly, do not want this. To put it in terms you can understand, without these artists, there will be nothin
Yes, I really do. In aggregate, copying really does hurt the artists.
It's not productive or sensible to think of a copy as a "lost sale" or not. We really need to look at it in terms of how likely you would have been to buy the music had you no access to pirated music. The probability that you would have bought it multiplied by the price produces the amount of money you're depriving unfairly from the artist.
Unfortunately, this probability is extremely difficult to discern. If you have a large library of music that you've pirated, it's extremely easy to say you would never have bought something when you have so much more music to fall back on. So, it's entirely possible for you to pirate 1000 albums, to reasonably say you would never have bought any of them individually, but had you never pirated, chances are you would have bought 20-30 of them. This is lost revenue to the artists. And just because you are stealing a small amount from a lot of people does not make the stealing justified.
It's a fantasy that people buy what they want, and only pirate what they don't, and artists do get hurt. Even with the small trickle of compensation money.
Think about it. If, for whatever reason, you happen to be against a certain group, and that group is defined by race (which, for our purposes, includes religion), unless you have an even lower opinion of your own race, then you believe your race to be superior to the other race. That's the definition of racism. It doesn't matter how much you can justify your beliefs, it's the definition of racism.
And, good or bad, once the definition is satisfied, a whole lot of (highly deserved) stigma comes flooding with it.
Well, the stigma from racism comes from the idea of (unfair) prejudice. By unfair, I mean that we associate traits with certain groups, with no guarantee that the individual members themselves have these traits.
So, for example, calling a Jew "money-grubbing" is an unfair prejudice, because not all Jews are "money-grubbing". My father (also Jewish), for example, works for public health and is sometimes sent to seminars overseas. Even though he is often given thousands of dollars to spend at a fancy hotel and eat handsomely every meal, he still finds the cheapest backpackers and eats Weet-Bix for breakfast, simply because he can't stand the thought of burning through the taxpayers' money. He clearly isn't the "money-grubbing" sort, but that doesn't prevent racist people from forming such prejudices.
Compare this with the not unfair prejudice that libertarians favour free speech. It's practically part of the definition of libertarianism. So, if you hate the act of favouring free speech, then you would be justified in singling out libertarians.
If you're looking at religions and races, you have to be careful. The problem is that in a vast majority of cases, the claims levied at religions and races have at most very weak correlations to the actual people as part of the race, and thus is classified as unfair prejudices. If, however, your problem is that you hate the belief of God (as in you can't even stand to be near someone who believes in God), then that would count as a not unfair prejudice.
Well, for one, as I was saying, racism has nothing to do with reasons; you are a racist regardless of the reason. The question is, do you deserve the stigma associated with it? That does depend on your reasons. I guess the question is, what kind of political, economic, or social constants would Jews inevitably be associated with? What are the constants of Judaism? There's a large variety of people in just about any religion, so be careful.
Here's a question: if you never met, or otherwise communicated with me, and I said I am a Jew, without any other qualifiers, what do you think about me? If I said I was a Jew, and that I was rich and working to shape the laws to my own will, would you think of me differently? Finally, what if I said I was just a regular person, no mention of whet
However, adding to the building body of arguments for it, will... not make it any less false, I admit, but hopefully it will make others less wrong after they read it.
Did I say that? No, wait, I believe what I said was that their so called fans are forcing them into an inferior business model, which would be true if the GP got his way. How do I know it's inferior? Because a) it's completely and utterly obvious, b) it removes any choice the artist had (restrictions on business models can never lead to a better solution, only the potential restriction of the better solutions), and c) because precious few has tried and made it work. This tells me fairly conclusively that this option, as a business model, is barely even worth exploring as an artist, let alone blindly entrusting with our culture.
So, no there's no formal expectation of free stuff (unless you're stupid enough to expect free distributable copies of recorded music), but nevertheless, there is an expectation that artists will deliver more for a lot less.
Such as?
Did I? Deary me, I'm such a ditz sometimes. Where did I assume such a thing? You might have to help me a bit and point out the specific phrase(s) for me. I can't seem to find them anywhere!
Artists do have choices. They can decide to sign with a label or stay indie, even though deciding the latter can be tough financially. From there, the artist/label can choose a multitude of ways to distribute the music, to promote the music, to tour, etc. They can choose whether they want to make money exclusively off touring, or they can choose to make money off recording as well. They can choose to take a break from touring to work on their music.
Any and all choices of any relevance are removed under the GP's proposed mass oppression and mollycoddling of artists. The choices are restricted to where to tour next and when to retire. It doesn't matter if some artists are forced into a particular pattern, because this proposed scheme will eliminate all choice for those who have choice. And, for those stuck in a particular pattern, that pattern will be a more-or-less optimal business strategy, and thus by eliminating these business strategy, we will essentially force them out of business. That is, the number of choices will drop from 1 to 0, and they become the first casualties of this short-sighted policy.
So, with the increasingly large body of arguments, I will repeat it again: everybody loses. Hopefully, you will either accept this, or refute the arguments supporting it, rather than attacking the rhetorical device of repetition.