|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted November 27, 2009 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 21:03, 27 Nov 2009.
|
Don't worry I'm not replying on the question for Doomforge
Meh. I'm still not going to spend half a wage on a game. Most of us already spend that much on food&bills. This way we can at least pretend we're all little commie mixtures of Jack Sparrows and Robin Hoods. ^^
Besides, it's too late now. Piracy has thoroughly infected my bloodstream. Possibly some sort of radioactive mutation.
Maybe you guys should've put less depleted uranium in those bombs you threw at us a few years ago. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Sharing / Stealing
- I always have to laugh if someone says illegal downloading is sharing but not stealing.
When I was a young boy, and someone explained the word "sharing" to me, it always had something to do with "portion". Sharing his sandwich in school with his best friends meant, he got one half, and I got one half. There have never been TWO sandwiches after we shared them 
Hey, but wouldn't it be awesome if you could give him a sandwich and still have a sandwich in hand? That would be even nicer than sharing.
Quote:
2. "We are living in a poorer country, therefore it is pretty much ok if we act a bit more illegaly than those who have a higher living standard!"
- The living standard in the USA or in Germany is for sure lower than in Monaco or Dubai. Does that mean americans and germans are allowed to steal more than the people from Monaco and Dubai?
I'm pretty sure you know yoruself that arguments was more than weak!
I never used that argument, and if I did, it wasn't intentional. No, I don't think living in a country X justifies anything. But wait, that also works vice versa: NOT living in a country X also doesn't justify stuff. In other words, it's stupid when people say that different countries should follow the same rules morally, but they say something totally different when it comes to laws: "my country forbids it, so it's forbidden". Wait, weren't you saying we should follow the same morality no matter where we live? Then why do you think it's ok to follow a local law and NOT ok NOT to follow it somewhere else?
Quote:
3. @ Doomforge
- I have a question for you, and I really want YOU to be the first one who gives a response to that question (So please all others (esp. TheDeath!) calm down until he posted his reply  ) Please try to use similar arguments you have used refering to your beloved downloading
--> Why is it illegal to copy money?
Thanx for your time.
TD was faster anyway Well, economically, it would mess things up, money represents stuff, money without coverage (printed) is worthless, hence you're really screwing up the market by doing so.
But, if you want to make some sort of comment from here, don't forget that the situation is so vastly different, it would be like comparing illegal downloading to stealing cars again. Keep in mind that you're meant to use that money, throw it at the market. What harm would it create if you copied lots of money and put it on your shelf, never intending to pay with it? "For your personal use" is the keyword here. So, before you make any conclusion, answer me whether you think copying money (illegal in all countries afaik) and keeping it in your house, but never intending to gain any goods with it is a crime, or not. Does it bring any harm? If yes, how and why?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 09:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) So if you could duplicate your sandwich to give it to your friend, you would call him a thief, is that what you're saying? Nice and very generous.
Here's a simple answer to 3). Money is used to deprive people of what they have (they receive money). If you copy money, that means theoretically, that you can use money and they give you something for it.
This is equivalent to copying a song then SELLING it (i.e they give you something for it), which is fraud or plagiarism, depending how you look at it. Which is what, ironically, would happen (i.e street piracy) if sharing was outlawed (100%).
sorry i had to reply to it as I'll be off for the rest of today.
Of course I knew you would reply before Doomforge. This is what makes you unique here. Just don't care what others say and making your own business. Why should you change?
And your reply to my first point is again such a TYPICAL TD answer. NO sense at all, NOT related at ANY point, just posting something to be present on EVERY page of the thread 
May I remind you of your OWN post? YOU said downloading is SHARING. I explained the word sharing. Now YOU use my example to make a completely nonsense analogy. Of course my friend is NOT a thief because he didn't stole it, but I GAVE IT TO HIM!. And together, we STILL have ONE sandwich. But I am pretty sure you "don't get my point", as ususal..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 09:52 PM |
|
|
Mind you, he did give you a rather good answer on your third point.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 10:03 PM |
|
|
One of the problems with this type of debate is that the way most tries to prove their point is through analogies, but I do honestly not believe any type of existing subject can be used as a fair analogy, because information strings aren't anything we see in our daily life.
About the money, just as an example, money is only valueable because of its trade worthness, more money without more productivity (or more to spend those money on) means these extra money are worth less than before. True you've got more money than the common man, but not as much as you might think and in the long run it's clearly something that's hurting everyone, cause you're also making the common man more poor (by pumping more money in a system without it having the sufficient growth).
My opinion on the matter should be clear from previous posts, but I might have misunderstood this thread, maybe it's not so much about how to make a proper society with using this superb technology, but rather, a thread for justifying pirating in the already existing society.
As it is now, it's of course not acceptable, but it should also be clear, I at least hope, that it would be for the better of the future with a system change where it actually is so. Such a change is not simply who should get paid by whom, but actually the way the data is distributed.
If we really should find any kind of common agreement in this matter, I think one must be ready for severe changes in the system as it is, otherwise it'll of course never be accepted. If you're ready for these changes, then we can look at it, like I think the first posts tries to:
Who's it really hurting in the big run, who's it really that gets limited in this way.
But no matter how you try to justify it with the current system, it's of course not an okay thing to do. True a downloaded information string, that you completely isolate for yourself and you'd never intended to invest in, for not talking about the entire time spent on doing this and applying this information string, you'd not have been a spender of society, to finally add that any kind of future spendings you do is completely unaffected of this isolated time span, is of course not hurting anyone, as it's not changing anything, but we all know the likelyness of that is zero (actually it's probably impossible).
A simple example, which doesn't matter if it applies to anyone in this debate or not, would be, if you download a movie, then the time you use seeing this movie is time you otherwise would have used playing a video game with your friends, making your friends buying both the video game and later on see the movie in the cinema with you.
So, if we remove the middle man, change the system, etc., then for me to see, the way of pirating is probably the way of the future, because it's fast an effective information sharing of interesting information which generate a lot of interest, however if we don't do these things, it's not okay to do so.
Finally I'm not advocating that you should obey a law because it's a law, obey society because majority rules or give in to peer pressure if you want to make such an analogy. You should do what you believe is right, what you want, but you should also always ask yourself some very simple questions, if your actions are limiting someone, i.e. if another person did it and you're in another spot of society, would you want yourself to do it? Most often there's good reasoning behind most things, and most often this reasoning is available to the public.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Sharing / Stealing
- I always have to laugh if someone says illegal downloading is sharing but not stealing.
When I was a young boy, and someone explained the word "sharing" to me, it always had something to do with "portion". Sharing his sandwich in school with his best friends meant, he got one half, and I got one half. There have never been TWO sandwiches after we shared them
Hey, but wouldn't it be awesome if you could give him a sandwich and still have a sandwich in hand? That would be even nicer than sharing.
Have you hacked TheDeath's account? What sense does your post have at all? YOu was the one who (multiple times!) said something about "serious arguments instead of...blabla..". So please follow your own rules. I clearly stated in my example why downoading isn't sharing. I haven't heard any argument against that statement from you. Will you try again?
Quote:
Quote:
2. "We are living in a poorer country, therefore it is pretty much ok if we act a bit more illegaly than those who have a higher living standard!"
- The living standard in the USA or in Germany is for sure lower than in Monaco or Dubai. Does that mean americans and germans are allowed to steal more than the people from Monaco and Dubai?
I'm pretty sure you know yoruself that arguments was more than weak!
I never used that argument, and if I did, it wasn't intentional. No, I don't think living in a country X justifies anything. But wait, that also works vice versa: NOT living in a country X also doesn't justify stuff. In other words, it's stupid when people say that different countries should follow the same rules morally, but they say something totally different when it comes to laws: "my country forbids it, so it's forbidden". Wait, weren't you saying we should follow the same morality no matter where we live? Then why do you think it's ok to follow a local law and NOT ok NOT to follow it somewhere else?
Baklave used that arguments a few pages before. And to be honest, I don't get what you are saying here. Of course there are different kind of laws in different countries. But there are "basics", which are treated the same (maybe punishment is different) in all countries. Or do you know a country where murder is allowed? Or robbery?
This doesn't have anything to do with morality. I personally find it quite immoral to marry more than 1 woman at the same time. But there are many countries here on this planet where is is common standard and no problem at all.
But this is not the question here. I am pretty sure stealing isn't allowed in ANY eastern european country. The question here is, is it stealing or not what you are doing when you download stuff.
Quote:
Quote:
3. @ Doomforge
- I have a question for you, and I really want YOU to be the first one who gives a response to that question (So please all others (esp. TheDeath!) calm down until he posted his reply ) Please try to use similar arguments you have used refering to your beloved downloading
--> Why is it illegal to copy money?
Thanx for your time.
TD was faster anyway Well, economically, it would mess things up, money represents stuff, money without coverage (printed) is worthless, hence you're really screwing up the market by doing so.
I find it interesting that you "allow" the economical part here, while you on the other hand didn't want to hear anything about that in your case
You are right, money represents stuff. But it is also the other way around Stuff represents money. Also stuff which you can't "feel" or hold in your hands (like a music file) represents money. Your internet connection represents money too, but you can't feel it or hold it in your hand. If you would find a way to connect to the internet without paying your provider, would that also be ok with you? (of course it would be ok for you , but the question is, do you think you are a thief if you do so?)
Quote:
But, if you want to make some sort of comment from here, don't forget that the situation is so vastly different, it would be like comparing illegal downloading to stealing cars again. Keep in mind that you're meant to use that money, throw it at the market.
You compare apples and pies here Doomforge. The only reason why cars have to be stolne physically is, they don't "fit" into the data cable of the internet connection.
Better compare it to a bank account: Let's assume I have 25,000 Euros on my account. You find a way to "download" that sum and load it into your account. Whom did you harm? I still have my money on my account, you didn't take it away from anyone, because NO ONE had it before (TheDeath's argument).
Quote:
What harm would it create if you copied lots of money and put it on your shelf, never intending to pay with it? "For your personal use" is the keyword here. So, before you make any conclusion, answer me whether you think copying money (illegal in all countries afaik) and keeping it in your house, but never intending to gain any goods with it is a crime, or not. Does it bring any harm? If yes, how and why?
Again you leave out the main point! I copy something for a reason. I don't download music and do NOT "use" it (listen to it). I don't download a game and do NOT play it. So why should I copy money and NOT use it? Makes no sense. Stevie Wonder wouldn't steal a movie dvd, would he?
And btw, you once in this thread brought up the argument about a shoe company who gets bankrupt if no one buys their shoes.
This argument alos misses a main valid part. As long as people can't "copy" shoes from the internet, they still have to buy them. Of course they can buy them from wherever they want, but they will buy them and use money for it. Companies who have bad shoes or expensive shoes maybe will get bankrupt, but that's how the market works. But they won't get ALL bankrupt. But if we start to download music from the internet regularely and in all countries, ALL music companies will get bankrupt, because there won't be a market present anymore at all.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mind you, he did give you a rather good answer on your third point.
I don't think this point is valid at all. If I download music for free, I can burn it on a cd and sell it. Where is the difference?
Just remeber moeny was invented to show the value of different products, when humans started to exchange products or goods and services. Money therefore is just a measurment. You can replace it with any good.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you hacked TheDeath's account? What sense does your post have at all? YOu was the one who (multiple times!) said something about "serious arguments instead of...blabla..". So please follow your own rules. I clearly stated in my example why downoading isn't sharing. I haven't heard any argument against that statement from you. Will you try again?
If you wish. But first, show me where did I say downloading is sharing... or were you speaking to TD? I don't think it's sharing, it's something different, therefore, I have nothing to add here.
Quote:
Baklave used that arguments a few pages before. And to be honest, I don't get what you are saying here. Of course there are different kind of laws in different countries. But there are "basics", which are treated the same (maybe punishment is different) in all countries. Or do you know a country where murder is allowed? Or robbery?
Hey, that was my argument...
That piracy isn't a crime everywhere and thievery is, hence, it's nonsense to say it's the same morally...
If you have time, why don't you try reading through it all? I mean, there is no use in me repeating the same points again
Quote:
This doesn't have anything to do with morality. I personally find it quite immoral to marry more than 1 woman at the same time. But there are many countries here on this planet where is is common standard and no problem at all.
But this is not the question here. I am pretty sure stealing isn't allowed in ANY eastern european country. The question here is, is it stealing or not what you are doing when you download stuff.
Yes, exactly that's the question - I'm happy we understand each other
Quote:
I find it interesting that you "allow" the economical part here, while you on the other hand didn't want to hear anything about that in your case
Nononono. It's not like that.
I don't want to hear about economics in one specific case: downloading. Because I gave up some arguments why me downloading or not downloading the game has no effect upon the market at all when I truly don't intend on buying the game - and I think you'll agree, say, because I have an empty pocket, hence I can't buy it at all. Whether I download it or not get it, in this situation, changes nothing. There is no money spent and no good taken. The only difference is whether I get to play the game or not. One of my main arguments was - and still is - that if there is no difference between action and lack of action, why is the action considered a crime? Or at least, something despicable.
Quote:
You are right, money represents stuff. But it is also the other way around Stuff represents money. Also stuff which you can't "feel" or hold in your hands (like a music file) represents money. Your internet connection represents money too, but you can't feel it or hold it in your hand. If you would find a way to connect to the internet without paying your provider, would that also be ok with you? (of course it would be ok for you , but the question is, do you think you are a thief if you do so?)
Well, that's a clever question. Ultimately, it's not the same thing - bandwidth is limited, unlike number of copies of games, servers require manning and maintenance, whether selling the game or song takes place after completing ALL the work and there is no need for maintenance, anyway.
By joining a network and not paying for it, I cause strain on servers that is not refunded, therefore, I cause some sort of damage while not paying for it, and that is unacceptable.
It would be acceptable if the bandwidth was unlimited, there were no employees thus no payment, the system would not need maintenance... In other words, when the only difference between me not paying for the system and not using the system was... well, nothing but my inability to use the internet.
Quote:
You compare apples and pies here Doomforge. The only reason why cars have to be stolne physically is, they don't "fit" into the data cable of the internet connection.
No, the reason is that they can't be copied...
<thedeath mode> once we're able to nanotechnically copy the car, will that be thievery? </the death mode>
Not going to argue why would it be preferred for greater good to socialize the process and deny monopoly here, because greed would slow humanity down... It doesn't belong here and as JJ said... we shouldn't start the process of socializing the world from here. It's questionable whether we even SHOULD socialize the world (mvass would obviously disagree) but that's off topic already, so nvm.
Quote:
Better compare it to a bank account: Let's assume I have 25,000 Euros on my account. You find a way to "download" that sum and load it into your account. Whom did you harm? I still have my money on my account, you didn't take it away from anyone, because NO ONE had it before (TheDeath's argument).
If I keep the money there and never buy anything with it, yes, it causes no harm. (unless there is some tax the bank has to pay or whatever, I don't know how banks work.)
But if you want to use it to buy something... already covered that. 
Quote:
Again you leave out the main point! I copy something for a reason. I don't download music and do NOT "use" it (listen to it). I don't download a game and do NOT play it. So why should I copy money and NOT use it? Makes no sense. Stevie Wonder wouldn't steal a movie dvd, would he?
Downloading games is like copying money
SELLING downloaded games is like USING the copied money
Now is it clear? aww, sorry, I will never illustrate my points well with the language barrier >_>
Quote:
And btw, you once in this thread brought up the argument about a shoe company who gets bankrupt if no one buys their shoes.
This argument alos misses a main valid part. As long as people can't "copy" shoes from the internet, they still have to buy them. Of course they can buy them from wherever they want, but they will buy them and use money for it.
Exactly - as long as.
For electronic data, there is no "as long as" available.
I can use TheDeathlike argument here and say "as long as nanotechnology isn't available".
Quote:
Companies who have bad shoes or expensive shoes maybe will get bankrupt, but that's how the market works. But they won't get ALL bankrupt. But if we start to download music from the internet regularely and in all countries, ALL music companies will get bankrupt, because there won't be a market present anymore at all.
This is indeed a bad example (by me) because you more or less can't live without shoes, at least not in Europe. So the scenario of ALL people NOT BUYING shoes is impossible, analogy is invalid.
But take shoes away and insert anything that we don't HAVE to buy, yet can't copy. A luxury item, jewlery maybe. If all people decided NOT to buy jewlery, ALL of jewelers would bankrupt. Yes, it's an exaggerated scenario, but so is the scenario that EVERYBODY copies games.
Sorry for massive amounts of quotes. You made many various points, it would be hard to address them in a quoteless reply.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 10:59 PM |
|
|
Please remember that where money only have value in regard to the amount of money in existance, and thereby only in regard to trade, the information strings you download have value to you independent of how many other people does the same, and can be used for more than just trade.
I don't think the idea of equaling the potentiel to have something (money, or trade power) with actually having it, can be done, at least not in the sence of this thread.
Because the form of credibility in regard to how much you own, could be used as an example, but even here, there are limits, because what can and cannot be traded depends on a lot of factors (many things after being opened, cannot be traded anymore). So even though it seems like a valid counter, I don't think it is, because that kind of credibility is only for very specific objects, and not something on like information strings.
Also I think it's a good idea if we make it clear now, what this thread is exactly about, isn't it about whether it can be justified to download from torrents, etc.?
And I say it depends on the system, current system, no, but it's clearly an improvement and the system should be changed I believe.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Downloading isn't stealing, but USE of stolen "goods".
The stealing is done by the part that makes it available for download.
It's like with drugs. Using isn't the same thing than pushing.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 11:02 PM |
|
|
By throwing copied money on the market, you lower the value of money of other people
so you're making them poorer, so your act is harmful
Nothing happens when you don't use the copied money though...
It's illegal because the law assumes nobody would copy the money just to stare at it.
But there is no moral consequence of copying money and not using it.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
|
Again, I emphasize, any kind of stealing analogy is false, because for something to be stolen, it requires it to not be able to be used by the previous owner, that's not the case here, it's copied, illegally, but still copied.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think this point is valid at all. If I download music for free, I can burn it on a cd and sell it. Where is the difference?
I thought we were talking about owning, not selling downloaded goodies.
That's a rather different issue.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2009 11:49 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:51, 27 Nov 2009.
|
My post started with 7 important words, it's obvious I make no sense if you ignore half of my post.
What am I talking about? Simple. The way this goes, it's either sharing or theft. Personally I do not care if it's sharing, or duplication... all I care is that it's not theft, because it most definitely isn't (doesn't take anything away from anybody). So unless you would call your friend a thief if you could duplicate your sandwich and gave it to him, then there's nothing to discuss.
But let me ask you this: what do you do when you "share ideas"? Do you lose the idea, and give it to your friend? Is that how it works? Really?
Because after all, this is information we're talking about.
So what was your point? Bashing me?
Quote:
I don't think this point is valid at all. If I download music for free, I can burn it on a cd and sell it. Where is the difference?
Read my post again and you might find the answer if you look hard enough. Use the search function of the browser to further find and outline the following key words in it: fraud, plagiarism.
Hope this time you see the "valid" point
Quote:
Just remeber moeny was invented to show the value of different products, when humans started to exchange products or goods and services.
too bad copyright actually wants to stop some people, the majority, from doing whatever they want with said products, even if they aren't going to profit commercially from it!
Quote:
Again, I emphasize, any kind of stealing analogy is false, because for something to be stolen, it requires it to not be able to be used by the previous owner, that's not the case here, it's copied, illegally, but still copied.
ohforfsake, I appreciate you still take the time to emphasize it, I became tired of repeating that. I mean it's not that hard of an answer to a simple question like "what is stealing?", seriously...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 12:01 AM |
|
|
Yes, socialists. That's right. Fight amongst yourselves! Fight for the rights of corporations! And then I'll come and conquer you all!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 12:02 AM |
|
|
lolwut I'm fighting for the rights of the people.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 10:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Fight for the rights of corporations!
I wish they would actually do that.
MOAR PROFIT
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 10:50 AM |
|
|
Wait, wat? Mvass fighting for corporations? Aren't corporations the cancer eating capitalism?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 01:03 PM |
|
|
I just think it's interesting that there's such a split among socialists regarding a right that is mostly used by corporations.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I just think it's interesting that there's such a split among socialists regarding a right that is mostly used by corporations.
What are you talking about a "right that is used by corporations"? You mean a "right that is taken by corporations" right?
It's not a question of socialism, to me it's more about liberty. (since, of course, it's non-commercial).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
