Yes it was, I'll concede that.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
E-mail Exchange Of The Day
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Yes it was, I'll concede that.
No, it's the practices of the movie/music industry that steer respectable people to not support their industry, meaning no purchasing NOR pirating the content. It's the dishonorable people that use it as an excuse to "steer" their actions to perform illegal activity. Don't confuse the two, it's a baseless justfication.
I highly loath the music and movie industry, btw. But I don't resort to criminal activity to "get my fix" while "sticking it to the man". I do what is the only logical and effective response, which is to outright not support them in any means. If people weren't widely so evil and rotten in todays day and age of entitlement, they could do so as well, and the movie/music industry would change in a heartbeat overnight or they would fail leaving you a path to create your own industry in how you view as fair.
nullvector
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 1,508
My problem with the whole antiquated copyright concept is that they can never define "what" is copyrighted.
Is the story copyrighted? If I tell the friend the plot of the movie is that infringement?
Is music copyrighted? If I hear a song for free at a store or on the radio, and hum it to myself, is that infringement?
When I buy a CD, am I buying physical media or a license? If physical media, why can't I rip it and share it, or make a backup copy. If a license, can I not let a friend borrow it?
When I buy a song though iTunes, I've technically bought a license, but if I then lose the file and try to download it again, I'm charged again. Why?
These issues are confusing as ever to consumers. When movies are now costing almost $20 to see in the theater, but $1 to rent from a box, consumers are confused again.
Suing customers only pisses them off because the rules are not clear, are ever-changing, and can never be explicitly stated in a consistent manner.
Is the story copyrighted? If I tell the friend the plot of the movie is that infringement?
Is music copyrighted? If I hear a song for free at a store or on the radio, and hum it to myself, is that infringement?
When I buy a CD, am I buying physical media or a license? If physical media, why can't I rip it and share it, or make a backup copy. If a license, can I not let a friend borrow it?
When I buy a song though iTunes, I've technically bought a license, but if I then lose the file and try to download it again, I'm charged again. Why?
These issues are confusing as ever to consumers. When movies are now costing almost $20 to see in the theater, but $1 to rent from a box, consumers are confused again.
Suing customers only pisses them off because the rules are not clear, are ever-changing, and can never be explicitly stated in a consistent manner.
Thats easy. 2 copies of software - 1 unsold = 1 sold. Therefore its a 50% loss.
Its really not that hard to figure out, is it? If you give something to someone else that they did not acquire legally, then that is a potential lost sale. If the person that borrowed from A likes the product, they should purchase it.
Sharing is a great thing, but so is proper acquisition of goods and services.
If someone come to your house, cleaned your carpet, you paid by CC and then when he left you called your CC company and filed a incorrect dispute saying the quality of the job was poor (when it wasn't, it was to your satisfaction) then you have taken something from both the company, and the employee, and possibly got him fired. The end result is the same, 1 job done - 1 job not paid for = 0 income.
I hate the RIAA and the MPAA for their scumbag tactics, and their overbearing ability to make our politicians sheep with money, the goal of protecting assets is what everyone in this world does, by locking their car doors, home, and putting money in a safe. If you firmly believe that taking from another is the proper way to do things, then leave your wallet on the sidewalk after payday, and see how long it takes to be scooped up. Its that persons right to your property anyway, we're all in a free to possess society, so I'm free to possess your items too. Money is not an object, its just a bunch of numbers in a digital computer at a bank anyway, so what are you worried about?
Of course it is. I'm not arguing it's legality. What I'm arguing is that casual file sharing shouldn't be.
So despite living in a free society in which even the lowest ability laborer can work enough to meet their bare necessities if they are responsible individuals, it is a travesty that someone who really makes a good life for themselves exists when others could die of starvation despite having the means to solve their issues? The sweat of my brow does make me sleep well, as I know those who don't want to make the same effort can easily do the same instead of feeding off my scraps.
Sorry, but that's making a slave out of the person with ability and responsibility.
Secondly, the one person that does live in excess also happens to create or provide the environment that creates the jobs, the means, the technology, the advancements, the community, and trade, and the protections that gives those who are less fortunate an easier time to better their own situation.
So, which is it? You want a world where those who are responsible for creating all that to just stop? You want to abuse, insult, and ridicule them into trying to shame them into doing your bidding? They don't need you, their businesses do not exist solely to provide you jobs, their talents and ability do no exist to provide you with means to obtain food or production, but of course they DO still offer that to you as a secondary effect. Go ahead, keep pressing, one day those who are responsible and can make the motor of the world turn will tell you that your insults of "racism" or "causing travesty" no longer concerns them, that they will no longer slave to your will. And we will then see who lasts the longest.
One of you finally said it! "Potential" doesn't count. Potential lost sales are just a made up number. In your example the one unsold copy may not ever have been sold. How can you claim it as a loss, and so specifically?
This is the fundamental difference in our points of view. The persons living in excess do not provide the means, or the technology, or the advancements, or community etc. It works the other way around. All of that excess is siphoned off a productive society who's existence enables that persons sphere of influence and affluence to grow. It starts at the bottom my friend.
Apparently, some people in the discussion ARE obsolutely dense.
A pig, by any other name is still a pig..........and you can't spit polish it.
Actually, it's still illegal according to current copyright law. Which is one of the inhernt problems with the current copyright law.
No. You have not sustained any loss. Even in this case there is no evidince to suggest the buddies were financially able to even buy a copy of your software. Furthermore, there is no cost to you. You didn't loose the cost of printing a CD, nor are you having to support the software. At BEST there is a "lost opportunity to sell", and at that token, companies are loosing billions because people are dying and they can no longer sale to them.
There are a finite number of people who are both able and willing to purchase your software. If I start selling copies of your software, then I have deprived you of a sale. If I give away your software to people who couldn't or wouldn't buy your software (photoshop is a great example of this as it's a 1000$+ software), there is no deprvation.
Or.... they could realize that what they are providing is convince and entertainment. People go to the theaters to see the awesome big screen and the killer sound effects. People buy on demand movies because it is convient. Also, last time I checked, piracy doesn't stop movies from getting paid for product placement. Nor does it stop them from selling action figures or collectables. The WAY people make money off of movies is changing, and it is by and far still profitable. Incredibly so. To paint these people as "starving artists" is a joke.
The day a machine is invented that can copy a car at no cost, then all cars have automatically become worthless. Movies and music are already worthless. The only thing that is worth anything is the convienence and the quality. It's why blue rays cost more than DVDs. It's why peopel are willing to pay more to watch it at the theater than on-demand. There's no difference in the plot if it's watched at 640x400 or in a theater, yet there are large price differences placed on these. To say
At the same time those very protections that are suppose to protect innovations hurt them. Patent trolls are banging down every door avaliable to earn a quick buck. Many companies aren't even patenting their ideas because they feel by exposing them in a patent it is more likely to be copied than using a trade secret. Hell, just look at the heat pipe CPU cooler patent fiasco that [H]ardcovered not but a few weeks ago. Just as much harm can be done by too much protection as too litte.
That is exactly the difference in our views.
I'd like to comment that I view it my way because I can assess and calculate the ways in which use of individual freedom and the advancement that occurs makes its way down the the people on the bottom enabling them to promote theirselves as well, I've personally practiced and experienced it, as well as I can provide proof of history on the concept of individual freedom and its correlation with advancement from 2500 years back.
So, coming from your view, how does one on the bottom who has a great idea manage to complete it? Doesn't he first he have to learn about farming land first to feed himself, to forge the tools to do the farming, to do the labor to harvest the crops? Doesn't he first have to learn about building a place to live in, manufacturer the tools to do it, then do the labor to build it? Doesn't he first have to provide a stable and secure society, before he can ever begin to function towards a goal of completing his great idea? Doesn't a million other things exist that he has to learn, to do, to build before he could ever begin to work on his great idea (which you say only exists from the bottom up)?
I would suspect the individual on the bottom doesn't create everything from scratch that he'll ever need to survive, that he won't have to learn the technology or trade of every single thing he ever touches, etc. I suspect that the individuals on the bottom use the advancements of the men before him, that provided him a job to give him money so he can begin to work towards his goal, that provide him production so he can buy his tools and food and shelter to being to work toward his goal, to provide the technology that came before his time that put him in a position to realize his goal might be technologically obtainable.
It works both ways, the individual at the top and the bottom, both are stepping stones for anyone that CHOOSES to make a better life for themselves. It is those who do NOT choose to make a better life which blame those at the top, and tries to ridicule them into being their slave, who stand on no grounds (which is what you are claiming).
Cannon_Fodder
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 249
I read some of the posts and can almost hear Andrew Ryan's voice.......anyone else getting that?
I don't care if it is a starving artist, or the richest man in the world. It doesn't change the fact that it is illegal and rightfully so. If one is not able to create and then live in a world in which they benefit from that creation, society is a human form stops. Creation stops, trade stops, force only becomes rule of law. Sure, untangibles and victimless crimes of theft may not be considered a bad thing, but it does set the precedent for a breakdown in all human society. Once the precedent is set, all it takes is for people to get in public office, or society in general, to start to also push opinion that tangibles or crimes with victims are such a bad thing either.
Yes, all cars would become worthless. And absolutely all advancement and innvovation past that point in cars would cease. This is the world statists and progressives want. THEY decided things are "good enough" and that it all needs to be spread between everyone (while the leaders get to live as a God-like oligarchy). Create a society in which copy protection is not allowed, and you'll see the same thing happen to media.
A choice between either work for free or work and then fight for your work, I think the answer is clear. No society is perfect, and the protections in place do serve a purpose while at the same time hurting them, but it's better than nothing at all.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
NO says the man in Washington...
LOL, the Andrew Ryan story is based almost solely on Atlas Shrugged, who's authors name happens to be Ayn Rand.
Actually it matters immencly if it is the richest man in the world of if the artist is starving. If the guy is getting rich off it, then it is CLEAR there is a reason to innovate and create. If the guy is poor, then obviously the incentive for others to innovate and create is not there.
To say that legalizing victimless crimes leads to legalizing crimes with victims is a joke.
And I thought were going to have an intellectual conversation. I was clearly mistaken.
That's not the choice. Star dock for example, released an indie game called "Sins of a Solar Empire" without any copy protection at all. Perhaps you've heard of it, it sold millions of copies. World of Goo has had several "pay what you want" sales, and have made millions from it. It's pretty clear that artists don't end up working for free even when that option is plainly avalible. Yes, some people downloaded Sins of a Solar empire instead of paying for it and yes some people paid only a single cent to buy World of Goo, however in both cases the companies still made money from the efforts and the studios are still putting out new games. Your ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING arguments simply don't hold water when tested in the real world.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
In short, you threw your arms because the argument isn't going your way, make some insult against a poster and his intelligence, and then make an unsubstantiated comment that "millions was enough" . You are absolutely correct.
No, it sets the precedent of being possible, and justifiable. It doesn't actually lead to it, but it opens the door. And all it takes is one bad person to obtain public office (jeez, that's just out of the question too, isn't it? /sarcasm), for them to take that precedent to the extreme.
And yet you didn't explain any reason why you said so, nor addressed what I said. For bitching about not having an intellectual conversation, it sure is funny you didn't address that in any other way than an insult.
That's THEIR choice to run a business model that way. If it's sustainable and profitable, then good for them. However, it doesn't give you or anyone else authority or reason to force others to have the same business model, or commit crimes against them when they don't submit. Furthermore, a world in which ALL business participated in the way you saw fit might not have so many successful businesses in which your small controlled enviornment test has given you.
Lol, I couldn't have said it better!
People that are correct, or highly believe they are correct because of facts, logic, and reasoning, NEVER back down from a debate nor shy away from analyzing and answering contrary opinions or facts.
In fact, reverting to insults and skirting the subject nearly immediately discredits their entire basis, which is funny because that was what they were trying to do to you by reverting to insults. It's like a kid throwing the game board off the table, and declaring he won, because he couldn't stand to live in a world which he might lose the game by playing amateurly.
All it takes is one bad person to take office to say lets kill all the Jews. Strong copyright protections sure stopped that from happening.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Sorry, but I don't respond to that type of crap. If I must respond to it then take the following as my response. It uses just as much real evidence and exactly the same logic. "If we don't stop the copyright laws today then the next thing we know the RIA and the MPAA will be God like super institutions that will take over the world!"
Look, there is the current state of laws, and there is the state of laws I believe should be. They are two separate issues. I have a right to believe the laws should be whatever I want. The government clearly has the authority to create laws telling businesses how they can and can not do business. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should look of the definition of a government.
Well, how about we look at the large scale test then? Last time I checked despite most every household in America having access to pirated material, and most of them pirating things the world has not collapsed nor has the country. The companies represented by the MPAA and the RIAA are still making money hand over fist. Disney for example made ~3.6B last year. Clearly all hell is breaking loose and they are going to go bankrupt any minute now.
All it takes is one bad person to take office to say lets kill all the Jews. Strong copyright protections sure stopped that from happening.
The precedent is the same, although greatly exaggerated. You may be fine with a little crime, as it always will happen, but it is when society or governments stop prosecuting or even claiming the crime isn't really a crime is when bad things happen.
That's fine, don't address the subject and respond as you would hope others would give as the same concern and care to a debate. If it is that unimportant to you to put in effort, you obviously should expect others to not give your ideas much consideration or merit. You can operate that way in your life, I hope it works well for you, but I operate with more integrity and it has got me far.
Government is force, which was why it was tied and bound in America when first established. To interact with its people the government must have allowance in the Constitution. Very few allowances were given, and do not encompass your claimed "government has the authority to create laws telling businesses how and how not to do business". Do they do it anyway, yes, just as pirates still pirate if no matter the terms of use. Does it make it right? No. I'm glad you have a right to believe what laws SHOULD be, I do as well, but what either you or I believe they should be does not make them right nor does it allow authority to force it upon others. You may have been taught in school that government is supposed to "take care of you" (which I know they teach the children today that, as I've seen the teaching material), but it doesn't make it true.
Of course it hasn't collapsed. The laws still exist and is somewhat being enforced. Furthermore the same precedent has not yet spread out to other similar situations. This would surely change quickly once the law is struck down, or is not enforced, as the next line of defense would be more heinous attacks on civility.
The fact remains, it's wrong whether you believe it is theft or otherwise, and that no amount of justifying or rationalization of hatred for someone else who may make more money than you will change that fact. Truth exists despite what you want reality to become.
That's awesome, and if I was the person the designed and manufacturer that furniture, and had copyrights or patents on it, I'd be suing you. If I lost the suit I'd also give every employee I had to lay off because of any decrease in profits to fund my bottom line your home address.
It's a shame that Marxist theory is taught so half-heartedly in our schools and anti-capitalism is just thrown about with such reckless abandon.
Because if they would actually analyze it more, we wouldn't have so many people espousing that monsterous, murderous worldview that makes every man a slave and then cheers the fact that everyone's equal. That is, when it's not starving tens of millions to death during centrally-planned "great leaps forward."
Because if they would actually analyze it more, we wouldn't have so many people espousing that monsterous, murderous worldview that makes every man a slave and then cheers the fact that everyone's equal. That is, when it's not starving tens of millions to death during centrally-planned "great leaps forward."
anonmoniker
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 718
anonmoniker
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 718
Well what's amusing is that I'd describe myself as a hardcore right-winger, but even I can recognize that the entertainment industry is one of the very few spheres of life where Marxism makes sense. An infinite supply of infinitely reproducible goods is the one place where that philosophy can thrive, yet it fails miserably everywhere else because resources are scarce. Ironically our moronic government allows the entertainment industry to be the most exploitative of all industries, while it socializes banks, industry, and healthcare, which I have no doubt will put a tremendous strain on the economy in the future and greatly reduce opportunity for the average person that such policies supposedly "help."
I am dumbfounded that there are 10 pages of this rationalization of theft.
The simple fact of the matter is: there is right and there is wrong.
You can't bend it.
You can try to intellectualize it, and make grey out of black and white.
Still, stolen is stolen.....and that's wrong. period.
The simple fact of the matter is: there is right and there is wrong.
You can't bend it.
You can try to intellectualize it, and make grey out of black and white.
Still, stolen is stolen.....and that's wrong. period.
Air Cooled 420
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2006
- Messages
- 695
+1 Yep
anonmoniker
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 718
I am dumbfounded that you don't understand the difference between copying and theft. Again, you may find this informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,878
Wasn't the producer a her?
or was that the director?
or was that the director?
And submitting to criminal activity is the answer to helping society? Nah.
Did you say Marxism makes sense in that industry, or did you mean it can be practiced in that industry without destroying it completely (as long as other non-marxist industries are still around to support the fallout)?
Infinite supplies of infinetely reproducible goods is great, like a utopia, however it does not to address the efforts of reproducing the goods nor does it ever incentivize creation or advancement. And as far as human society can reach, even hundreds or thousands of years into the future, a utopia of that kind still does not exist in this universe (where an end can come without the means).
Marxism, or any variation of augmented markets, do not mix together, and when they are tried to be mixed together they drain from the profitable markets. Free markets, capitalism, private property, and liberty do not infringe upon others ability to practice the same, but Marxism or other 'isms attack one another and especially freedom.
Legally they are both wrong, as they should be (in my opinion), unless otherwise authorized under the terms of use the producer of the material wanted we had made such material.
I'm dumbfounded why we are discussing whether it is theft or copyright infringement, when they are both illegal, as it is somehow an excuse or justification that it is somehow ok to do.
Amen,
I honestly can't understand how these folks can't see how short-sighted they are being. They say: "It's easily and infinitely copy-able. . . so I should be able to have it for free." Well, okay, that might work for what's already available. But if you continue down that road, pretty soon, nobody is going to want to make anything new. . . since you've dictated that nobody should have to pay for it. Who's going to make high-budget, quality film/art for free? Just like: Who's going to make your chair or farm your food if it's all free? Which, of course, leads to the state forcing people to do those things, and everything that entails.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
It is an important distinction, and making that distinction in no way is a justification for infringement. It is brought up again and again because many people mislabel the crime. We don't call larceny copyright infringement, so why would we call copyright infringement larceny?