|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:18 PM |
|
|
|
I would like to know how a 30+ member thinks about this...some people actually have to live from this and still give their family a certain life quality.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why would you ever buy music if you can listen to the radio?
Why would you buy a car if there are bus outside?
I can only see 1 reason: The public transportation schedule sucks like heck.
But if the bus and trains had a proper nice smooth flowing schedule, then give me 1 good reason to own a car except for excessive shopping(when you but some heavy objects that is halfway impossible to move more than a few meters)?
Quote:
Also, torrent for games is not like radio for music. Demos for games are like radio for music.
Demo's can't compete properly with the radio compared to torrents. There are very few demos out there, and most of them are not representativ for the game.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:25 PM |
|
|
Passion, or showing off.
When you're doing expensive shopping like once per month, it's still MUCH cheaper to simply take a luggage taxi. How many times would you have to buy stuff and take such a taxi to make it less efficient than the cost of a decent car + gas + parking meters + faults + tickets + car insurance?
|
|
dvid
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:29 PM |
|
|
|
In my opinion, the "I wouldn't get it anyway" argument doesn't work out very well legally or morally, because there's no way for the government to see if you would have gotten it or not. As for morals, everyone would say they weren't going to pay for it. Generally people try to justify it saying they're only doing it on things they can't do but it becomes a slippery slope.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In my opinion, the "I wouldn't get it anyway" argument doesn't work out very well legally or morally, because there's no way for the government to see if you would have gotten it or not.
Two words: presumption of innocence
Quote:
As for morals, everyone would say they weren't going to pay for it. Generally people try to justify it saying they're only doing it on things they can't do but it becomes a slippery slope.
I don't understand your point. Care to elaborate?
|
|
dvid
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, the "I wouldn't get it anyway" argument doesn't work out very well legally or morally, because there's no way for the government to see if you would have gotten it or not.
Two words: presumption of innocence
Quote:
As for morals, everyone would say they weren't going to pay for it. Generally people try to justify it saying they're only doing it on things they can't do but it becomes a slippery slope.
I don't understand your point. Care to elaborate?
With presumption of innocence, how would that ever work? Then everyone would pirate anything they wanted because "They wouldn't have gotten it anyway". I just don't see a practical way for doing what you're saying.
On the 2nd part, I was just saying people themselves would have difficulty stopping themselves from taking stuff ("Oh, I probably wouldn't have bought this.... *click*)
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
With presumption of innocence, how would that ever work? Then everyone would pirate anything they wanted because "They wouldn't have gotten it anyway". I just don't see a practical way for doing what you're saying.
I see no problem with that, you have to explain first why downloading is bad.
Quote:
On the 2nd part, I was just saying people themselves would have difficulty stopping themselves from taking stuff ("Oh, I probably wouldn't have bought this.... *click*)
What's the difference if they don't *click* in the end?
|
|
dvid
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:45 PM |
|
|
(Sorry I forgot to quote)
If people just downloaded when they would have been the customer for the creator, they are hurting the creator in potential money the creator could have made.
For whether or not it's theft, to quote Wikipedia's article of the same name:
"In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny."
(Emphasis by me)
So wherever taking downloads of copyrighted stuff is illegal, then it is theft.
Sorry if I sound angry, I'm not trying to. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
Binabik sounded angry, not you.
Quote:
(Sorry I forgot to quote)
If people just downloaded when they would have been the customer for the creator, they are hurting the creator in potential money the creator could have made.
I covered that already 200 times. No reason to repeat further - take a look at earlier pages. Imho it's simply not true at all.
Besides, what is the point of saying "if everybody thought like you, XXX would happen". First, it's not a possible scenario. Second, it's not an argument. For instance, when some people don't want kids, some try to convince them by "if everybody thought like you, there would be no people". Which is true, but - does it mean they should actually start reproducing after hearing this? It's an unnecessary extrapolation.
Quote:
"In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny."
I don't take anything and there is no loss. I create a copy. The difference is big enough to have people all over the world wonder whether it actually is legal or not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 04:01 PM |
|
|
That's only because the actual "good" is digitalized and CAN be copied. Let's see what the actual problem is
Now, if Paramount or whoever makes a movie and invests 200 million into a Batman movie - if you go into a cinema to watch it, you paid for seeing the movie. If you record the movie so you can watch it at home, I don't think anyone has a problem with that - after all you paid to watch it.
However, if you post that record in the internet for everyone to download, you are actually violating PROPERTY rights of the movie company, doing something with the movie you are not allowed to. THIS is the actual crime here.
Now, if YOU download that movie, watching it at home, it's like taking stolen property, and taking it knowingly. That movie shouldn't be downloadable in the first place.
Whether it's a movie, a game, a song or anything else that can be digitgalized, doesn't matter: it should be downloadabnle only by consent of the proprietor.
I'd compare this with consuming stuff not allowed to you - from your end of the equation. It's like being 14, not allowed to drink hard alcohol - but someone supplies, no matter what. He shouldn't supply, you shouldn't drink. For you, it's of course a lot easier to drink; for the supplier, even if he doesn't earn coin and just give the stuff away, he may have other motives.
Still: wrong.
Now, about you don't knowing what to do after the scholarship expires, Doom. I don't really think that someone who doesn't work for his life and has no idea what to do and how to do it, when he has to, should tell others how to feel about it, when you make use of the fruits of their work without actually paying for it.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's only because the actual "good" is digitalized and CAN be copied.
And that's what make the situation unique.
Quote:
Let's see what the actual problem is
Now, if Paramount or whoever makes a movie and invests 200 million into a Batman movie - if you go into a cinema to watch it, you paid for seeing the movie. If you record the movie so you can watch it at home, I don't think anyone has a problem with that - after all you paid to watch it.
However, if you post that record in the internet for everyone to download, you are actually violating PROPERTY rights of the movie company, doing something with the movie you are not allowed to. THIS is the actual crime here.
You know what this reminds me of?
A "crime" of sitting on a high tree with a looking glass to watch a football match without paying for it.
Oh my God, what thievery! 
Now being more serious: I still don't see how this is different from the previous examples - again, the same old boring answer: if I haven't paid for the ticket, it's virtually not a difference whether I've seen this movie with a spying glass or not. The producer got nothing again. The "crime" I'm doing here - yep - is not expressing gratitude for their work, yet watching it. Not exactly fair, but I wouldn't call it a crime. Like I posted on 4th page or so, calling that kind of activity "thievery" is a serious exaggeration. Not exactly something that should be outlawed, because... well, because I gave enough examples already. The crown argument remains, if there is no difference between taking and action and NOT taking an action (downloading and not paying: not downloading and not paying), I don't see a reason to make it a crime.
Quote:
Now, if YOU download that movie, watching it at home, it's like taking stolen property, and taking it knowingly. That movie shouldn't be downloadable in the first place.
Whether it's a movie, a game, a song or anything else that can be digitgalized, doesn't matter: it should be downloadabnle only by consent of the proprietor.
Again: what CRIME is that I don't obey whims of the creator?
If he wishes people not to see it, he obviously shouldn't try to make money on it.
If he does -> AGAIN, whether I get it or NOT get it doesn't change the fact that i don't pay him. There is one, single difference between me NOT downloading it and downloading it: That I, respectively, am able to see it or not. There is no other consequence at all.
What's so criminal in me picking the better option for ME, seeing that the other gives nothing good and only makes things worse for ME and me alone?
Quote:
I'd compare this with consuming stuff not allowed to you - from your end of the equation. It's like being 14, not allowed to drink hard alcohol - but someone supplies, no matter what. He shouldn't supply, you shouldn't drink. For you, it's of course a lot easier to drink; for the supplier, even if he doesn't earn coin and just give the stuff away, he may have other motives.
Still: wrong.
You see, you're making an important point here.
And that point is to what extent should we follow the law.
Should we jump cause the law says: jump?
A bad example of that is what radical Islamists do: they only obey the law, telling them to behead you on sight.
I believe we shouldn't obey the law just because IT'S THE LAW, holy book told you so or whatever. We should have our own opinion on it, and if we sincerely think this does NOT hurt or concern others, then the law is useless and we're morally OK by breaking it.
I don't agree that piracy-is-outlawed fact should be backed up by "well, LAW says it is".
You are familiar with the laws of Third Reich, aren't you? Well, was obeying some of them any good?
My morality tells me that the piracy law is BS. You can of course not agree, or, like Binabik, call me a thief, whatever. But arguing "you are a thief because LAW says so" reminds me of when you get pissed on Elodin, who says something is wrong because the Bible says so. More or less the same approach.
My morality is simple: whatever brings harm to others is wrong and should be avoided.
I explained in the thread here why I think this does NOT bring harm, or at least, doesn't make a real difference in my situation.
Quote:
Now, about you don't knowing what to do after the scholarship expires, Doom. I don't really think that someone who doesn't work for his life and has no idea what to do and how to do it, when he has to, should tell others how to feel about it, when you make use of the fruits of their work without actually paying for it.
Oh, but I did work and I had to pay for everything myself at one time. Sure, I don't have as much experience as Corribus or you, but I do have a bit, if that's what you needed to know. It took a solid year, so I believe it's enough to have some experience - well, at least enough not to make a fool out of myself.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
Doom, I don't like egoist people who look for a justification for being greedy because they want absolution.
Look, if a flat is empty because it's owner is on a holiday - why is it wrong to break in, use the flat, bring everything in order again and then leave before the owner comes back? Was someone hurt? Harmed? Did you take anything from someone? Nope. So where's the problem?
Or take Harry Potter. Rowland decided to stop it there. Why? What gives her the darn right? The fans want MORE Harry Potter. Maybe you have a good idea for a continuation of the sory or for an alternative ending of the story, maybe even for an alternative story line from much earlier. Now, if you write that stuff, I'm not quite sure what will happen if you simply just post the stuff - but all hell will break loose if you want to cash in for it from anyone, that's for sure.
How can THAT be? You didn't do anything, right? No one was harmed, you didn't rob anyone of anything.
Your main problem seems to be that you are unable to grasp and respect the concept of intellectual property. If that concept wouldn't exist there would be no original art because everyone - and every corp or organization as well - could just use everything for everything. You'd see advertisement with stolen movie scenes and stolen songs, and everything would just rip everything off from everyone else. Intellectual property is the foundation for every work done with the power of the mind, and if an artist or scientist decides voluntarily to share part of his or her property freely, then it's a great thing, but he doesn't have to.
People just have no right to take everything they want to just because they would like to and it's so easy. A society that doesn't respect INTELLECTUAL property anymore decides to be communist in ideas, but capitalist in matter. It should be obvious that this can't work. Why become an artist when everything you do will be socialized, but nothing else? Imagine only house builders wouldn't get a pay, but only what people donated to them. You'd have to be out of your mind to become a house builder, except you might build one for yourself.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 07:06 PM |
|
|
I think comparing the rate of innovation before intellectual property rights and after intellectual property rights says quite a bit. An inventor could make something just to have the king take it and then send him back to his workshop. It was a thankless, oppressive system.
The claim of artists being greedy/materialistic is ironic coming from a thief, who are materialism's champions. It's so easy to only think about the tiny minority of artists that make a great deal of money. Nevermind the overwhelming majority of everyday working people in the business that are also affected.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doom, I don't like egoist people who look for a justification for being greedy because they want absolution.
Does it have something to do with me? 
Quote:
Look, if a flat is empty because it's owner is on a holiday - why is it wrong to break in, use the flat, bring everything in order again and then leave before the owner comes back? Was someone hurt? Harmed? Did you take anything from someone? Nope. So where's the problem?
Actually, I don't see the problem. Nothing stolen, nothing damaged, nothing used? No prob then. What's the crime here, actually - do you see any?
Quote:
Or take Harry Potter. Rowland decided to stop it there. Why? What gives her the darn right? The fans want MORE Harry Potter. Maybe you have a good idea for a continuation of the sory or for an alternative ending of the story, maybe even for an alternative story line from much earlier. Now, if you write that stuff, I'm not quite sure what will happen if you simply just post the stuff - but all hell will break loose if you want to cash in for it from anyone, that's for sure.
How can THAT be? You didn't do anything, right? No one was harmed, you didn't rob anyone of anything.
Actually you are allowed to write as much as you want - fanfiction. As for selling it... I'm against making cash on someone's else ideas - there is a difference, and a big one, between copying something for personal use and copying it to sell it and take advantage of someone else's work. Besides, there is no guarantee the new series will be any good - it may just spoil the series because the new writer was incompetent. Happens to games made by other companies (Fallout 3...), even though that was "legal" - the outcome was crappy.
Quote:
Your main problem seems to be that you are unable to grasp and respect the concept of intellectual property.
Nope - I'm just point my actions don't have a different consequence than blindly obeying the "copyright" laws.
Don't make me repeat that sentence again
Quote:
If that concept wouldn't exist there would be no original art because everyone - and every corp or organization as well - could just use everything for everything. You'd see advertisement with stolen movie scenes and stolen songs, and everything would just rip everything off from everyone else.
I'm against plagiarism and making advantage of someone else's work.
Getting a copy for personal use is very, VERY different thing, though.
Quote:
People just have no right to take everything they want to just because they would like to and it's so easy. A society that doesn't respect INTELLECTUAL property anymore decides to be communist in ideas, but capitalist in matter. It should be obvious that this can't work. Why become an artist when everything you do will be socialized, but nothing else? Imagine only house builders wouldn't get a pay, but only what people donated to them. You'd have to be out of your mind to become a house builder, except you might build one for yourself.
I don't see any correlation between creative work and payment or lack of payment for it - and having a private copy for your own needs.
Let me use a different example, if you insist on examples: the situation is more like, you're a house builder and you made a nice house that self multiplies. For you, there is no difference whether someone doesn't buy your house or just uses friend's one and multiplies it - perhaps your ego and greed may take a hit, but guess what: nobody cares for your ego and greed.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm against plagiarism and making advantage of someone else's work.
Getting a copy for personal use is very, VERY different thing, though.
I don't see any correlation between creative work and payment or lack of payment for it - and having a private copy for your own needs.
Now that's interesting. You are against taking advantage of someone else's work. Then why do you advertise it? Do you really think there is a difference in taking advantage of someone else's work TO MAKE SOME MONEY or TO LET YOURSELF ENTERTAIN? There is no logic in that.
Quote:
Let me use a different example, if you insist on examples: the situation is more like, you're a house builder and you made a nice house that self multiplies.
The only one with an ego and greed is you here. Because it doesn't self-multiply. It is multiplied by someone else - against my will - and that someone else does something he isn't entitled to. Just because something is possible or can be done it's not ok, that much should be obvious. With points like that you could easily rob Gates part of his wealth - after all it's just his ego and greed that makes him keep so much more money than he can possibly spend.
If you want to socialize intellectual property, you have to socialize everything, and you should start with the stuff that actually does some good and isn't just killing bored kids' time.
End of story.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 07:56 PM |
|
|
Well, if you say end of story, I have to obey your wish then.
Thanks for the discussion, anyway. You haven't convinced me, but it was entertaining. Cheers.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think comparing the rate of innovation before intellectual property rights and after intellectual property rights says quite a bit. An inventor could make something just to have the king take it and then send him back to his workshop. It was a thankless, oppressive system.
Which is an invalid scenario. You are talking about "the dark ages", we had a almost total stop in evolution of technology for snows sake.
Please attempt to at the least use a valid comparision.....
Quote:
The only one with an ego and greed is you here. Because it doesn't self-multiply. It is multiplied by someone else - against my will - and that someone else does something he isn't entitled to.
First part of what i quite start with quite the insult. But onwards....
A house is a constant work, which like most attempts to create a comparision to what is on the internettz.... it fails badly. Wheels == web browser? No, that also fails.... BUT there is people who attempt to create comparisions.... 
The thing is that it takes long time to build a house, and materials, and property to build it on. Since its very hard to build a house, we got people who specialize in building general buildings and houses. BUT to make house a valid comparision to "pirating"("get a copy"), it would have to follow the exact same properties, which it cannot have. Which makes it an sad attempt.
So you virtualize a house, and then somebody virtualizez a simular house. The question is next: "So what?", because nothing has really happend in this comparision.
I also got a source somewhere claiming(done by a neutral source) that "pirates"/"downloaders" BUYS more music than the people who do not do this. I can dig up the link if anybody claims the opposite.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 08:39 PM |
|
|
And what is the point? If I buy one car/month, I am less guilty if I stole 20 cars/day?
That you download the other work is your problem and can't be stopped. But continue claiming that you don't do anything wrong, it is lifeless. Just do it hidden and accept you became a virtual thief and actually cause a lot of harm, if followed by everyone.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:14 PM |
|
|
In any case, though, I think we have to be realistic. There's nothing companies can really do to stop piracy, so they'll have to turn to other ways of making money.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:24 PM |
|
|
I am thinking piracy is living its last free years. There is already a law adopted 1 month ago in France who cut internet access to anyone is caught stealing over torrents/emule. Once the first heads will fall, people will think twice before doing it. Music/movies companies are putting high pressure on the government to act against this. And they are not ready to give up soon.
The bad side is that we will be under close survey and internet will be no longer a no man's land.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
