If I make a copy of a thing that I would not buy anyway, how am I depriving anyone of anything?
It's not nearly that simple. Sure, you may look at something you pirated and say "I would never have bought that" in retrospect, but there are several problems with that. For one, this is you saying this. The one who stands to gain the most from saying "I would never have bought that". You can't trust your assessment to be impartial and fair. This of course, is nothing personal. It applies to everyone, me included. That's one reason that I tend to refrain from making such judgements, or at least bias them towards the least favourable scenario for me (i.e. "you know, I might have considered buying this at some point, possibly after a later price drop").
For two, we can't consider these things on their own. Sure, you could have easily survived without any given pirated object (assuming your judgement is unbiased and accurate), but could you survive without any of the works that you've pirated over the years? You obvious have a taste for such entertainment. Could you survive on however much you buy?
Even if you could, and this is my third point, making piracy legal is exactly that: making piracy legal. There's nothing about "something you would not buy anyway" in that statement, just whatever you feel like downloading, you may download it. If you, or others, downloaded media that you/they would have bought, do you not accept that it hurts the creators of that media (even if it doesn't bankrupt them)? If copyright were not law, this is exactly the behaviour that would be legal. Even people with some moral fibre, who would voluntarily donate to artists, are in the afore-mentioned bind where they are left as the sole unaccountable judges of what to pay to whom.
In short, it's a fallacy.
Which completely ignores a point I made earlier -- nobody ever went broke from piracy
Is that all you can say? I think you'll find that society (and morality) traditionally offers justice to more than the very destitute. If you are contributing member of society, then you get more protection against petty greed than just bankruptcy insurance. Your "nobody ever went broke from piracy" is completely, completely beside the point.
in many if not all cases piracy has actually caused the "victim" to gain money.
That's a bunch of self-serving bullshit. I take it, you're referring to "free" advertising right? The argument is dumb. For one thing, it's a fucking axiom of the free market that consumers will go for the best value when given a choice. It doesn't always hold, but our entire system relies on it holding most of the time, and it does. Given two choices of identical products, we, in a vast, vast majority of cases, will choose the cheaper product. The *only* reason we have a culture is that we have this temporary sense of morality on the issue. Most people are aware of the fact that not paying for the asking price of a work is harmful and morally wrong, but that seems to be slowly fading.
Also, there is absolutely no need for pirates to be dictating (from general ignorance, I might add) to artists as to how they should market their product. If they want the work on P2P networks, they fucking put it there themselves. That way, they enjoy/suffer the consequences of their choice, not the autocratic declaration of thousands of free-loaders, who don't even respect them enough to pay them money.
Roger McGuinn of the old '60s band The Byrds credits the old outlawed Napster and the "thieves who stole from him" for his career's rebirth. It got the old songs in front of a new audience, who started BUYING them on CD after hearing them, and going to his live shows. He'd been playing bars before, after his label dumped him.
Perhaps Roger McGuinn has learned a valuable lesson about the power of P2P, and will seriously consider using it as a se
That's like saying I need a justification for smoking pot. My conscience doesn't bother me a bit when I break a law that should not exist, and I firmly believe that noncommercial copying should be legal. Nobody ever went broke from noncommercial copying.
There you go again! Not broke = perfectly fine! What does it matter if it's your money, their money, or their (or your) financial security? So long as they can buy a meal every few weeks, your conscience can remain blissfully clear, right?
Of course they have bits on them; the pictures and sound are bits. Everything digital is made of bits.
I was referring to blank DVDs, which cost less than a dollar a pop, and they sell no specific bit patterns. Of course, they, according to you, is one of the very few smart business models. I'm sure we'd be wiser and more enlightened if we just sold blank media.
There's no sameness in that; it's a completely different thing. Potential money is not actual money.
OK firstly, I was taking about your dismissing of complex issues by "hey, it won't bankrupt them".
Secondly, there is some correspondence between potential money and actual money. Whether it's a cheque or a income stream, it still hurts. Imagine if you lost your job. Sure, you wouldn't go broke, and sure, there was no guarantee of infinite income, but it still hurts.
Now, imagine that you lost your job directly from the greed of others, free-loading off your own work, and contributing absolutely nothing in return, all completely outside of your control. Imagine that you know with a fair degree of certainty that many people would be interested in your services, but thanks to people leeching off your work, they prefer to leave you high and dry, and vilify you because you selfishly aspire for something higher than the bankruptcy line.
Capitalism is supposed to promote lower prices through competition. That way, we get sustainably lower prices, since competition can sustain itself after the incumbent dies. For that reason, piracy is not competition. Piracy completely relies on the work of those it competes against. Supporting piracy makes no moral sense, nor intellectual sense.
People are so quick to jump to that conclusion. I guess it eases their consciences a little when they do copy bits.
Trying to sell bits is stupid, but not quite as stupid as trying to keep people from copying them. Bits are like air -- to sell air you have to wrap a balloon or a scuba tank around it. The people selling "digital content" need to learn to do the same. Don't sell movies, sell DVDs.
People do sell DVDs. Depending on how many you buy, they cost less than a dollar a pop. Of course, they don't have "bits" on them, but I suppose that only stupid retailers would even try to sell "bits".
Don't worry about the "piracy", nobody ever went broke from piracy.
By the same logic, I suppose you shouldn't worry about the RIAA taking thousands of your dollars in a backroom deal then, huh?
I think the following people should be excluded from gun ownership:
- People without full mental capabilities - Criminals - People who are paranoid about terrorism - People who are paranoid about government - People who are paranoid about guns - People who are paranoid - People who are just generally afraid - Anyone who would actually buy a gun for themselves - Pretty much everyone, really.
Unfortunately, the US is far too addicted to safely wean itself off guns. Now, the criminals truly do have the guns, and it's too late. Everyone needs to now keep up the arms race.
I believe that when the submitter refers to IE, he refers to the legacy of IE, particularly its popularity despite its standards non-compliance. This may well be another death for the old IE.
And, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would actually resort to changing the IE brand in the future, if things got really rough.
And I appreciate having a body of ocean between me and you. The problem is that your right to self-defence has the very real potential to fatally conflict with my right to life.
Dude, you've brainwashed yourself with your own rationalizations. You've embraced your own version of doublethink.
No way! If you say things like "brainwashing" and "doublethink" that many times, naturally you're totally immune to such phenomena! How could I possibly be wrong?
Pah! Typical slashdotters always assuming that evolution is the answer. We all know that IE is a product of intelligent...... wait, on second thought...
Slashdot Mirror
... you... you scientist!
No doubt.
But if all else fails, and your kids are running wild, awful parenting may well be better than no parenting at all.
Bull, meet china shop!
In which case, I will never use irony again.
From now.
No... wait... now!
Uhh, because despite original intentions, a little vocational training doesn't go far astray?
It's not nearly that simple. Sure, you may look at something you pirated and say "I would never have bought that" in retrospect, but there are several problems with that. For one, this is you saying this. The one who stands to gain the most from saying "I would never have bought that". You can't trust your assessment to be impartial and fair. This of course, is nothing personal. It applies to everyone, me included. That's one reason that I tend to refrain from making such judgements, or at least bias them towards the least favourable scenario for me (i.e. "you know, I might have considered buying this at some point, possibly after a later price drop").
For two, we can't consider these things on their own. Sure, you could have easily survived without any given pirated object (assuming your judgement is unbiased and accurate), but could you survive without any of the works that you've pirated over the years? You obvious have a taste for such entertainment. Could you survive on however much you buy?
Even if you could, and this is my third point, making piracy legal is exactly that: making piracy legal. There's nothing about "something you would not buy anyway" in that statement, just whatever you feel like downloading, you may download it. If you, or others, downloaded media that you/they would have bought, do you not accept that it hurts the creators of that media (even if it doesn't bankrupt them)? If copyright were not law, this is exactly the behaviour that would be legal. Even people with some moral fibre, who would voluntarily donate to artists, are in the afore-mentioned bind where they are left as the sole unaccountable judges of what to pay to whom.
In short, it's a fallacy.
Is that all you can say? I think you'll find that society (and morality) traditionally offers justice to more than the very destitute. If you are contributing member of society, then you get more protection against petty greed than just bankruptcy insurance. Your "nobody ever went broke from piracy" is completely, completely beside the point.
That's a bunch of self-serving bullshit. I take it, you're referring to "free" advertising right? The argument is dumb. For one thing, it's a fucking axiom of the free market that consumers will go for the best value when given a choice. It doesn't always hold, but our entire system relies on it holding most of the time, and it does. Given two choices of identical products, we, in a vast, vast majority of cases, will choose the cheaper product. The *only* reason we have a culture is that we have this temporary sense of morality on the issue. Most people are aware of the fact that not paying for the asking price of a work is harmful and morally wrong, but that seems to be slowly fading.
Also, there is absolutely no need for pirates to be dictating (from general ignorance, I might add) to artists as to how they should market their product. If they want the work on P2P networks, they fucking put it there themselves. That way, they enjoy/suffer the consequences of their choice, not the autocratic declaration of thousands of free-loaders, who don't even respect them enough to pay them money.
Perhaps Roger McGuinn has learned a valuable lesson about the power of P2P, and will seriously consider using it as a se
Absolutely! The laws serve no other purpose than to allow multinational corporations to bully... uhh... other... multinational corporations?
There you go again! Not broke = perfectly fine! What does it matter if it's your money, their money, or their (or your) financial security? So long as they can buy a meal every few weeks, your conscience can remain blissfully clear, right?
I was referring to blank DVDs, which cost less than a dollar a pop, and they sell no specific bit patterns. Of course, they, according to you, is one of the very few smart business models. I'm sure we'd be wiser and more enlightened if we just sold blank media.
OK firstly, I was taking about your dismissing of complex issues by "hey, it won't bankrupt them".
Secondly, there is some correspondence between potential money and actual money. Whether it's a cheque or a income stream, it still hurts. Imagine if you lost your job. Sure, you wouldn't go broke, and sure, there was no guarantee of infinite income, but it still hurts.
Now, imagine that you lost your job directly from the greed of others, free-loading off your own work, and contributing absolutely nothing in return, all completely outside of your control. Imagine that you know with a fair degree of certainty that many people would be interested in your services, but thanks to people leeching off your work, they prefer to leave you high and dry, and vilify you because you selfishly aspire for something higher than the bankruptcy line.
Capitalism is supposed to promote lower prices through competition. That way, we get sustainably lower prices, since competition can sustain itself after the incumbent dies. For that reason, piracy is not competition. Piracy completely relies on the work of those it competes against. Supporting piracy makes no moral sense, nor intellectual sense.
Anyone else find these kinds of comments incredibly dumb?
Apple are offering a product, and it's up to you to decide what you want.
Just no.
People are so quick to jump to that conclusion. I guess it eases their consciences a little when they do copy bits.
People do sell DVDs. Depending on how many you buy, they cost less than a dollar a pop. Of course, they don't have "bits" on them, but I suppose that only stupid retailers would even try to sell "bits".
By the same logic, I suppose you shouldn't worry about the RIAA taking thousands of your dollars in a backroom deal then, huh?
You say "stigmatize", I say "reverse years of brainwashing". You have such funny accents over there.
It would be, if the Camaro was an instrument of death.
I think the following people should be excluded from gun ownership:
- People without full mental capabilities
- Criminals
- People who are paranoid about terrorism
- People who are paranoid about government
- People who are paranoid about guns
- People who are paranoid
- People who are just generally afraid
- Anyone who would actually buy a gun for themselves
- Pretty much everyone, really.
Unfortunately, the US is far too addicted to safely wean itself off guns. Now, the criminals truly do have the guns, and it's too late. Everyone needs to now keep up the arms race.
Alarmist and hyperbolic: check!
Poor grasp of the issues: check!
Completely one-eyed assessment of the situation: check!
OK, the "obey" tag is cleared for use!
I only learn tidbits of information that are either useful or interesting, and currently, that particular piece of info is neither.
But then, rather than saying "It's hopeless, it's been tried before", you should be asking "what do you plan to do different?"
That, IMHO, is what separates a curmudgeon from a sensible conservative.
*slow clap*
Perfect for oiling up before...
Actually, I think I'll stop there.
I believe that when the submitter refers to IE, he refers to the legacy of IE, particularly its popularity despite its standards non-compliance. This may well be another death for the old IE.
And, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would actually resort to changing the IE brand in the future, if things got really rough.
"Balanced copyright" are just words. What some might consider fair or balanced, others will inevitably not.
It's not like the artists walked in and demanded that copyright be unfair.
And I appreciate having a body of ocean between me and you. The problem is that your right to self-defence has the very real potential to fatally conflict with my right to life.
No way! If you say things like "brainwashing" and "doublethink" that many times, naturally you're totally immune to such phenomena! How could I possibly be wrong?
"Evolution gives you the answer"
Pah! Typical slashdotters always assuming that evolution is the answer. We all know that IE is a product of intelligent... ... wait, on second thought...
Don't look now, but I think they achieved Step 3 without Step 2.