|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted April 22, 2011 02:58 PM |
|
|
I love the "should you kill the fat man"-questions.
[url=http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx]I couldn't find the one I took originally[/url], so I will give you this incredibly smug one.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 03:11 PM |
|
|
I think it's fair at this point to report that scenarios 7-7.2 are famous thought experiments that were originally designed by the philosopher Philippa Foot. There are many variations to the problem designed to probe how/why humans make certain moral choices, and whether there's a distinction between morality and psychology of choice. You can read more about some of this here. No point discussing other variations here - your answers are probably already conditioned at this point. 
Anyway, the interesting thing is that when confronted with question 7.0, most people answer that they would pull the lever, killing one person at the expense of five. However, when asked whether they're actually push someone into the path of a moving train to save five, people answer "no" - even though the fundamental result is the same. Obviously, more people are inclined to do that, however, if the man being pushed is the actual villain.
One of my favorite variations is one where pulling the level causes a train to derail, roll down a hill and kill someone sleeping in a hammock. Though this is very similar to 7.0 (in which most people would do it), in this case most people would opt not to kill the sleeping man, because they judge him to be somehow innocent.
Interesting stuff, morals.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
violentflowers
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 07:33 PM |
|
|
Morals are subjective and hold true in certain cultures during time periods that may alter and come full circle several times over. These scenarios that have been presented actually happen everyday just in different ways. For instance if one chooses to sleep with a married man thus ruining that family and causing one of the children in the equation to go on a killing spree later on in life, your action could very well be the result of that child's decisions.
So to me the lesson here is to look at all decisions that we make large and small as a window into a future that while we can't completely control; we can hop aboard the moral boat at any point in our lives and make a positive difference. You have more control over your destiny then you may think, life is all at the end perceived wealth of knowledge and lessons.
____________
A wise and frugal government,
which shall leave men free to
regulate their own pursuits of
industry and improvement, and
shall not take from the mouth
of labor the bread it has
earned - th... too long to display...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 08:36 PM |
|
|
Baklava, most of people cry there are not enough laws when something is taken from them, but then will dismay any law which protects others, therefore restrict them on acquiring free wealth. Anyway, the law is the law, and the ones who, actually, made the music, already gave their consent for it. And what you think about the ways to avoid it or morale related, they don't care, it is a symbol of own property.
Take Elodin, for example, always reticent to any laws, from any state, and harshly being against any form of control coming from. And then begging every day for COC to be respected, which means control and law, because he feels insecure in the forums jungle . I got used to this behavior, free download is similar. If you was the one making the music, you would be pissed when John Doe got it in one click.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 10:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you was the one making the music, you would be pissed when John Doe got it in one click.
Why?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
.
Take Elodin, for example, always reticent to any laws, from any state, and harshly being against any form of control coming from. And then begging every day for COC to be respected, which means control and law, because he feels insecure in the forums jungle.
I think that this is doing Elodin injustice. Elodin usually wouldn't complain.
However, others have complained, which led to moderation toughening their stance against him. The trouble is, that Elodin feels, he's only reacting on what others do, and unfairly and unjustly penalized by the moderation.
For this reason he turns to the mods when he feels that someone said something he would get penalized for if he would say it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 10:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you was the one making the music, you would be pissed when John Doe got it in one click.
Why?
Because only death is for free, and as we all kmnow even that costs life.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 10:46 PM |
|
|
I'm asking why would Bak be pissed as an artist that someone got his song for free 
Anyway, would he?
Would he be pissed is someone heard it on radio without paying for it too?
I guess not.
Then what exactly would he be pissed about? definitely not about someone "hearing it for free".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 11:07 PM |
|
|
|
Radio is paying, and artists get money for that.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 11:11 PM |
|
|
ok, radio, bad example.
Youtube then?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 11:17 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 23:52, 22 Apr 2011.
|
Rather to fix my useless input...
Regarding Baklavas dilemma.Would not everybody use the chance to download something for free if he/she was given the chance to do so for free without any chance of persecution?
If I was the creator of music,I would never doubt that people,who have the chance to evade price tags to get my music,would do so.
Gelegenheit macht Diebe from german "Opportunity makes thieves".
Its only natural,ever seen pigeons struck for free meals on the road?
A dilemma
A drugg addict killed himself because of drug overdose.Some people grieved because he/she could be saved,others expressed that the drug addit saved his/her family by sparing them the cost for rehabilitation.
Is the life of the drug addict more important or the wealth of his her family?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 11:35 PM |
|
|
|
You can not post on Youtube artworks under copyright. Will be removed.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2011 12:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can not post on Youtube artworks under copyright. Will be removed.
There's pretty much every song you want on YT... yeah there are some "video XYZ removed under copyright claims by ZYX" but nobody cares anyway.
Anyways, we had this discussion before, and we know where this leads. I'm still pro-piracy and haven't changed my arguments one bit, however I will refrain from re-posting my arguments again, it's rather pointless anyway
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2011 10:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Is the life of the drug addict more important or the wealth of his her family?
Important to whom?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 01:08 AM |
|
|
The problem is that the nature of the goods that musicians create is no longer what it used to be. 50 years ago, music was put on records and, when it came to selling it, it was a product like any other: furniture, cars, whatever. Today, however, every information can be shared on the internet freely and endlessly, and music falls into that category. In fact, the so-called intellectual property is, in the context of economical theory, effectively a public good, no matter how hard the distributors and producers are trying to make it into a club one.
I'm, hence, a firm believer in forming an information industry which wouldn't be so heavily tied to the material one, and changing the approach to intellectual property to better suit the age we're living in. Accepting the nature of information instead of limiting the potential of such an endless good. Of course, everything taken into the equation, that currently seems impossible. But it's something to think about.
I did write songs and make music with my band until about a month ago, when we fell apart. Now I'll find another band and continue doing it. If we ever make something out of it, which I highly doubt, but we're talking theory here, the main source of revenue would be live performances. Other merchandise like t-shirts and crap? Sure. But I am against artificial scarcity and legal action against someone who is out there spreading my work around, enjoying it, and making me more popular and my music more respected. My reasons for making music probably don't coincide with that of Britney Spears, Metallica and other strictly commercial musicians, however. I am overjoyed if there are people who actually want to hear what I'm trying to say through my songs.
I understand that some folks are in it for the money, and I'm completely ok with that, but they need to be rational when it comes to the changing nature of their product. Manfred von Richthofen was serving in the cavalry when the Great War started and machine guns and barbed wire rendered horses pretty much obsolete. So he decided to keep doing what he did best - fighting, sat in this new "airplane" thing and became known as the Red Baron, the most famous combat pilot in history. If I was making a certain product for years and time and development changed things (like the printing press or so many other examples in history), I wouldn't desperately try to fight the impending progress and attempt to keep things as they were by any means possible. Not even the Vatican does that anymore. Well, not that much. Anyway, I'd go with the flow and figure out how both to make a profit and remain in touch with the current age.
But this is probably a story for another time. Just wanted you to know that not all pirates are mindless opportunists with no sense of ethics like you imagine them to be, and that there is a kind heart behind our badass visage and intimidating muscles.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 05:05 AM |
|
|
Electronic piracy isn't an example of something becoming obsolete due to new technology or new techniques, or due to a loss of interest from consumers/viewers. The demand for games and movies isn't disappearing, it's simply more easy to abrogate the need to pay for the product.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 05:54 AM |
|
|
I don't think you're looking at it from the correct perspective. Of course electronic piracy is an example of something becoming obsolete due to new technology.
When the printing press was invented, the demand for books didn't decrease either, it increased. A lot. Only handwritten works became redundant; they still kept their aesthetic, cultural and historical value, but it became impossible for them to remain the only source of literature available. That's the challenge the industry is facing now.
The internet changed things even more than the press; printed books were considerably easier to produce than handwritten ones, but still needed resources, while sharing things over the web pretty much doesn't. Books are, also, like cds and dvds etc, physical things that can be bought or sold; while it's not that simple with completely virtual information such as an mp3 downloaded off the internet. That's why the industry embraced the printing press with open hands, but is fighting file sharing to the bitter end.
So of course it's all cause of the new technology - which allowed endless, free copying of the products of half the human industry. Entertainment, art, culture, education, you name it.
Anyhow, never mind, back to moral dilemmas.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 08:44 AM |
|
|
Look, the problem isn't THE FACT, that information is available on the web, and the problem isn't the fact either that it is available for free. Video and tape cassettes plus radio and TV were no different from that - with a slight difference: the storage media were pretty expensive, and artists got money from that as well as from airplay.
Which is what is missing now.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 12:52 PM |
|
|
Read what jolly said as: Copying directly was painful back in the day, it was usually a long and cumbersome process, that involves large units of space too.
You needed either have special equipment, or have special contacts, and even those special contacts would sell it to you for cheaper, not giving out free copies.
Today the techology has changed that, and on the other hand the music industry is NOT taking advantage of the tech, and hence they should die like the dinosaurs they are.
The other problem is also: Can someone PLEASE show me statistic evidence that piracy has cased a DIRECT decrease in the sales of music or games? All research I have seen on the subject shows it is the opposite.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2011 01:54 PM |
|
|
No. Just because it was a bit more complicated to copy music and movies to tape than it is now, it doesn't mean it hasn't been done. On the contrary.
It was never forbidden.
That was due to the fact, that there was a fee on tapes that artists got a part of. This is, by the way, still true for xerox copying.
So the actual problem is, that "the world" simply has been unable to agree on the same or a similar procedure for digital data. This might involve quite general downloading fees the provider would cash in (generally for the ability, to do so, the way it was a couple of years ago), and a fee on storage media. It might be a server fee as well. The point is, that ARTISTS would profit from it, like they have profited from taping and still profit from photocopying (writers get royalties each year from this, depending on work and so on).
The technical details are irrelevant, though. Suffice it to say that it would be possible to make everyone happy, however, politics and industry are unable to agree on anything.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
