Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.

no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.

Must buy into consumerism... must buy into consumerism... must buy coca-cola...must buy CDs... must buy CDs... downloading music is illegal...

Really, so brainwashing by corporations tells us that taking something somebody made is wrong? I thought that we learned that kind of thing in preschool, you know when you snatched the clay sculpture from that one girl and the teacher yelled at you...

Its a good that was made, its a good that's for sale, taking it without paying for it is wrong. If you're a physicist and you make an article and want to sell it to some sort of journal or whatever and somebody comes along and takes your article and distributes it to the world for free wouldn't you be slightly miffed?

China, Iran, and North Korea seem to do a good job of it. Hell, Egypt and Syria turned the internet off for almost a month.

Sorry, but the digital generation still loses out to money, connections, and guns.

Good job pulling examples of the most backwater nations on earth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.

no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.

Must buy into consumerism... must buy into consumerism... must buy coca-cola...must buy CDs... must buy CDs... downloading music is illegal...

Really, so brainwashing by corporations tells us that taking something somebody made is wrong? I thought that we learned that kind of thing in preschool, you know when you snatched the clay sculpture from that one girl and the teacher yelled at you...

Its a good that was made, its a good that's for sale, taking it without paying for it is wrong. If you're a physicist and you make an article and want to sell it to some sort of journal or whatever and somebody comes along and takes your article and distributes it to the world for free wouldn't you be slightly miffed?

we get paid a salary, so no i would not be miffed. in fact a lot of us do that for free anyway, it's called advancing science. We understand there are more important things than money in the world. In fact a few of my papers are already free to download. Ideas feed off each other and while the claiming of the nobel prize and other great advancements is fought over, the money is just a good little extra.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and check this guy out, he's already publishing for free. http://frontalot.com/index.php/

notice MC frontalot has an option to buy, which i have. But that his songs are also free.

What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.

If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.

Now let's say that your department collected journals from you and planned to sell them to pay you back. So you have one source of income and that's the number of copies your departmentsells, but someone saw a copy and posted it to the internet. There is now less of a demand from institutions for your article because they can get it for free and your department doesn't get paid as much. I can only imagine that your department would say "Sorry about the leaked copy of your article, we're going to pay you in compensation for the lost possible income.", before I realize that you would indeed be making less money.

gendoikari87 wrote:not directly but both were trying to keep an old dying system. and what's wrong with the phrase "wage Slaves"

It's almost as silly as "sheeple."

What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.

Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.

If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.

Yeah they do, and pirating may be wrong but you can't stop it. But you can have a brain and circumvent it, like a lot of artists have already done. and again, those that pirate the most, are the ones that spend the most on music so your point is moot. Face it your defending a system that can no longer operate in the way it did originally, and is trying to stave that off by fething over free access on the internet, hampering progress. With that i'm out. I've seen when i'm arguing with drones they keep coming up with the same bull answers and phrases with no real content. You've all started to do that. Good bye.

gendoikari87 wrote:

What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.

Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.

If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.

Yeah they do, and pirating may be wrong but you can't stop it. But you can have a brain and circumvent it, like a lot of artists have already done. and again, those that pirate the most, are the ones that spend the most on music so your point is moot. Face it your defending a system that can no longer operate in the way it did originally, and is trying to stave that off by fething over free access on the internet, hampering progress. With that i'm out. I've seen when i'm arguing with drones they keep coming up with the same bull answers and phrases with no real content. You've all started to do that. Good bye.

U mad?

Yeah I download music, and I usually don't go out and buy it later.

But, I got a big pile of old cassette's and CD's from the pre-piracy days with 1 really kick ass song that I bought the cd/cassette for and 9 to 12 piles of songs.

I figure the music industry owes me a good deal of quality music to make up for all those disappointments of my youth

The B-sides are where the true fan finds their musical satisfaction.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Yeah I download music, and I usually don't go out and buy it later.

But, I got a big pile of old cassette's and CD's from the pre-piracy days with 1 really kick ass song that I bought the cd/cassette for and 9 to 12 piles of songs.

I figure the music industry owes me a good deal of quality music to make up for all those disappointments of my youth

Not really, if you really liked a song but didn't want to buy the whole album you could always just hope it came on the radio. That's what I did and I don't own a lot of CDs because of it, there are a lot of good songs on the radio by bands I like so there's no need to buy a CD. Now when itunes came out, that was something I enjoyed because I could just buy one song like they could in the old days.

The industry isn't "old" or "out of date" its still working isn't it? That's like saying the use of textbooks is "out of date" because why buy the whole book when you can download pirated chapters for free.

gendoikari87 wrote:we get paid a salary, so no i would not be miffed. in fact a lot of us do that for free anyway, it's called advancing science. We understand there are more important things than money in the world. In fact a few of my papers are already free to download. Ideas feed off each other and while the claiming of the nobel prize and other great advancements is fought over, the money is just a good little extra.

If you're willing to advance science for free, why do you draw a salary?

Who pays your salary? Why do they pay you that money?

I can assure you that you're not paid for "advancing science." You're paid because you confer a benefit to your employer.

gendoikari87 wrote:Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.

You don't undeerstand Constitutional law (as evidenced by your assertion that the ninth amendment conveys a specific right to privacy) and you VERY cleary missed the point in Atlas Shrugged about leeches/looters/etc. Your position that "I can take it if I want it, without paying" flies in the face of Rand's premise of the exchange of value among willing participants. You are giving NOTHING of value in exchange for the music/show/IP you are stealing.

I hope you have a better grasp of physics than you do of legal principles and moral philosophies.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms

Ahtman wrote:There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.

No, you're justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. Since we can just declare that without actually testing them first.

Srsly though, just because I want something doesn't mean I want it enough to buy it. If I wasn't going to spend money on it in the first place, what is actually being depleted or what is anyone losing? It's still not right for me to take it if I had the intent to purchase, but honestly they lose nothing. That's the only point I'm trying to make and I'm curious what the argument refuting it is.

You are talking about whether you you want something or not and I am talking about the legality of it so of course it will seem off to you.You can create all the justifications (or as the theft triangle puts it, rationalize) you want for taking something illegally, that doesn't stop it from being illegal. If you are unfortunate enough to be selected to be made an example of that the argument that you either a) wanted it, but not really enough to purchase it and b) that you really only made a duplicate so it didn't really count will get you laughed out of court as you are fined into oblivion. Odds are you would settle though so they will only snicker. People saying it isn't actually stealing won't feel so clever when they are actually under arrest. Piracy may not be the best word for it but it is the one that stuck and has no bearing on the legality of the thing. You could call it women's lingerie, which would make even less sense, and it would still be a crime no matter how it is rationalized. These arguments work really well when it doesn't matter, i.e. the internet, but not so much where it does.

gendoikari87 wrote:
not directly but both were trying to keep an old dying system...

Even if we except that you have to explain why trying to keep a "dying" system is wrong.

Why should innovators have any more say over what people do than those who like the old ways? Both are imposing their will on others, so it seems foolish to argue they aren't morally equivalent without any further data.

gendoikari87 wrote:
...and what's wrong with the phrase "wage Slaves"

Its utter nonsense. Even if you accept that a person be a slave to a wage, you would then have to accept that they can be slaves to other concepts like science, art, or food.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms

Ahtman wrote:There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.

No, you're justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. Since we can just declare that without actually testing them first.

Srsly though, just because I want something doesn't mean I want it enough to buy it. If I wasn't going to spend money on it in the first place, what is actually being depleted or what is anyone losing? It's still not right for me to take it if I had the intent to purchase, but honestly they lose nothing. That's the only point I'm trying to make and I'm curious what the argument refuting it is.

You are talking about whether you you want something or not and I am talking about the legality of it so of course it will seem off to you.You can create all the justifications (or as the theft triangle puts it, rationalize) you want for taking something illegally, that doesn't stop it from being illegal. If you are unfortunate enough to be selected to be made an example of that the argument that you either a) wanted it, but not really enough to purchase it and b) that you really only made a duplicate so it didn't really count will get you laughed out of court as you are fined into oblivion. Odds are you would settle though so they will only snicker. People saying it isn't actually stealing won't feel so clever when they are actually under arrest. Piracy may not be the best word for it but it is the one that stuck and has no bearing on the legality of the thing. You could call it women's lingerie, which would make even less sense, and it would still be a crime no matter how it is rationalized. These arguments work really well when it doesn't matter, i.e. the internet, but not so much where it does.

I said it wasn't "right" a couple of times in this thread already. If I download junk that I haven't purchased, it is illegal. Since laws are just made to make society play fair and aren't a real indicator of moral absolutes, in reality, they lose nothing though in the circumstances I mentioned. I'd never say that in court

He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.

Anyways, I guess we're all just drones compared to the guy who doing the same things over and over again because he gets paid to do so in the name of science. Know what, I think that paying scientists is a dying system because they all say that they are doing it for more important things than money.

@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.

iproxtaco wrote:They should crack down on the sources of the data, eg. the servers for The Pirate Bay.

Implying people use the pirate bay.

halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.

Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place

Let's try it this way:

If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.

If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.

Capiche?

Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.

halonachos wrote:He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.

Bow before his might.

halonachos wrote:
Anyways, I guess we're all just drones compared to the guy who doing the same things over and over again because he gets paid to do so in the name of science. Know what, I think that paying scientists is a dying system because they all say that they are doing it for more important things than money.

Doctors Ice Cube and Mike Eppes do it for the benjamins.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms

Thank you, I felt they were relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.

" border="0" />

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I said it wasn't "right" a couple of times in this thread already.

If you read what I wrote I have not used the word right at all, I'm not making value judgments, but rebuking the 'well it isn't really illegal' attitude. I don't mind if people download stuff as much as when the act like somehow it is suddenly perfectly legal to do so.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'd never say that in court

At least you have the cowardice of your convictions?

Bravery is a virtue, but cowardice is a life skill.

Cowardice? I just said I'd blatantly break the law and know it's wrong. Isn't that more like unnecessary badassery?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cowardice? I just said I'd blatantly break the law and know it's wrong. Isn't that more like unnecessary badassery?

If you were punching cops and robbing banks, maybe.

Internet piracy is the opposite of badass.

The opposite of badass is hardly automatic cowardice, tis it not?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.

Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place

Let's try it this way:

If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.

If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.

Capiche?

Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.

Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.

Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place

Let's try it this way:

If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.

If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.

Capiche?

Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.

Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.

Congrats?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.

Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place

Let's try it this way:

If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.

If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.

Capiche?

Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.

Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.

Congrats?

Thank you. Point stands though, if you really want something you should be willing to give something in exchange for it. That's how capitalism and any other sort of economy works; barter, trade, whatever you want to call it has been around and taking something without giving something back in compensation has always been wrong and later illegal.

People that are argueing that piracy is ok, what you are basically saying is that I can walk into your house and just take whatever the feth I want. when you confront me i'd say "its not hurting anyone, ive paid my dues, i can do what i want, your backwards for keeping things in your house!"

dajobe wrote:People that are argueing that piracy is ok, what you are basically saying is that I can walk into your house and just take whatever the feth I want. when you confront me i'd say "its not hurting anyone, ive paid my dues, i can do what i want, your backwards for keeping things in your house!"

Or your example is entirely fallacious. It's more like if I could walk into your house and make a copy of anything there and then have my own copy. NO ONE LOSES ANYTHING. TRY HARDER.

your example would be applicable if I sold something and you copied, then i would lose profits, and would be stealing. YOU TRY HARDER, i dont get why some people fail to see how illegal/serious/immoral online piracy is...