|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:09:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So it's institutionalized stealing. Got it. I was reading it's main thrust into this was the freedom of information.
From Dictionary.com:
steal Audio pronunciation of "stealing" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Given that this program, if made law, gives both right and permission to copy the work; no, it is not stealing.
International law would still consider it stealing. And as you aren't China....... I also consider it stealing as it does steal compensation from the artist or manufacturer.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Also, both visual and auditory art can be and very often is information.
Funny, I don't see it that way. Art is experienced. It does not teach anything. Perhaps we have a serious disconnect in the way we define information.
Maybe we do. I'm not entirely sure what the formalised definition if any word I use is, since they are all defined recursivly down into my subconscious. Again, from Dictionary.com:
4 entries found for information.
in·for·ma·tion Audio pronunciation of "information" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfr-mshn)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
Both number three and number five are examples of how music or pictures can be information. I have long held that knowledge is information which is understood by a person, and that information is any collection of data or facts. When discussing mathematics or computer science, there are a few more things information can be.
To me, information does not have to "teach" anything to be information. It just has to be. I also think that the only thing which can be experienced is information, in various forms and states.
But whatever debate we can hold on the nature of information, we should probably leave it to a different thread, if we agree that the program does deal with art as well as information.
While the program does deal with art as well as information, 3 cannot apply to art as no statistical data is contained in pictures or music. Nor does it contain facts. 5 is a generalized application of the computer science concept of stored data.
quote:
quote:
quote:
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And this isn't removing all patents and preventing the issuance of others..... how?
I suppose it does. But "thrown out" to me implies "quickly, suddenly" and usually "without regard to those it affects" and "without attemps to soften the blow". Probably another disconnect.
Your party fails to enumerate how that is to happen. And how does one "soften the blow" of opening up an avenue for exploitation of someones work by others.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R%D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
And why would someone invent something when they can't recoup any of that R&D cost? Pharmaceutical companies exist to turn a profit. Remove the profit from the R&D and you don't have any reason to develop new medicines.
James Watt didn't get to patent his improved steam engine. He died a rich and famous man. Albertus Magnus didn't patent his process of creating arsenic. He died a rich man. Famous, too. Gutenberg didn't get to patent his printing press, and died a poor man. He still invented it, though.
Profit can be made without a patent. No one has patented whiskey, but still seems to be going strong. And medicines has a rather larger market than even booze.
Profit can be made without a patent, but in this age it is highly unlikely. Especially in a society which now has the means and financial incentive to steal an idea and exploit it because they have much more cash than the inventor. Watt lived in a time where such information was difficult to get.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It also says that there is a right to information. This is wholly unreasonable as there are some critical bits of information which a country must have for it's own defense. The names of covert operatives in other nations, for instance. In addition, why should any computer company supply and equipment or software to a nation which has said "we don't recognize proprietary information or ownership".
Information classified with regards to national security, or |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/16/2006 12:20:22 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:18:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Valiant Dancer wrote: This party has nothing to do with pirating any other works than computer programs. Why? Because art (visual and audiotory) is not information.
I bed to disagree. Songs, pictures, and films are copied and distributed all the time. They ARE information. There is also technology being developed as we speak to create 3D printers. No doubt eventually the technology to print out a life-sized, realistic copy of the Mona Lisa will be widely available. While there are differences between software and art/music/writing, many of Bunga's basic arguments hold for both.
I cannot hold them as such as it degrades the meaning of information to merely data files. Songs, pictures, and films are copied and distributed all the time. Their intellectual property is copied, but they contain no information. Just data which is up to the individual to interpret and convert into information.
quote:
What's the point of inventing something if you won't be able to profit from it?
*sigh* Once again, the argument for copyright laws assumes a purely capitalistic system.
Yes, I am assuming a capatalistic model. It is what most of the world's governments are based on. One that society is ingrained to follow. Why make velcro when laces work just as well?
quote:
So it's institutionalized stealing.
The whole concept of property is a social institution! Now you are just playing a silly semantics game.
Concepts that other nations will be inflicted with if Sweden goes this way. I should have phrased it as governmentally aided stealing as that is how other capitalist nations will view it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
From my experience in life, those who believe that the fruits of other people's labor should be made freely available to all, aren't usually willing to do the hard work for themselves. And again I contend, those who feel they deserve the things they aren't willing to work for can be defined as lazy.
I must say, I don't think much of your experience in life.
I deserve a lot of things I am not willing to work for. Life. Liberty. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of access to information. If I lacked some of these things; I might be willing to work for them, but since I don't, I don't know.
quote:
What a ridiculous attempt to justify your support for thievery. You advocate that she shouldn't have the right to establish her own terms for release and copy protection of the original X number of pieces of art. So when she releases her next series of paintings, does some kind of copyright protection kick in then? Or since you had no qualms about stealing the results of her first effort, wouldn't you just steal the second series, too?
She has the right to negotiate terms. She did; and sold her originals for 10 USD each. Personally, I think that was too little, she should have held out for a better offer. I do not believe she should have exclusive rights to reproduce her work though, no. I believe we have already gone through that.
I do have qualms against stealing her work, and firmly believe that stealing her work is wrong. One might argue that since she was forced to sell the originals for an absurdly low figure because of poverty, she was forcibly coerced and therefore theft, but I am not sure if that holds water. On her next series of paintings, she will have the same copy protection she did for her first: the right to be recognised creator. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
From my experience in life, those who believe that the fruits of other people's labor should be made freely available to all, aren't usually willing to do the hard work for themselves. And again I contend, those who feel they deserve the things they aren't willing to work for can be defined as lazy.
I must say, I don't think much of your experience in life.
I deserve a lot of things I am not willing to work for. Life. Liberty. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of access to information. If I lacked some of these things; I might be willing to work for them, but since I don't, I don't know.
quote:
What a ridiculous attempt to justify your support for thievery. You advocate that she shouldn't have the right to establish her own terms for release and copy protection of the original X number of pieces of art. So when she releases her next series of paintings, does some kind of copyright protection kick in then? Or since you had no qualms about stealing the results of her first effort, wouldn't you just steal the second series, too?
She has the right to negotiate terms. She did; and sold her originals for 10 USD each. Personally, I think that was too little, she should have held out for a better offer. I do not believe she should have exclusive rights to reproduce her work though, no. I believe we have already gone through that.
Only applies if you BUY the works. You could also just take pictures of the works and sell the compendium. In that case, she hasn't negotiated at all for terms.
quote:
I do have qualms against stealing her work, and firmly believe that stealing her work is wrong. One might argue that since she was forced to sell the originals for an absurdly low figure because of poverty, she was forcibly coerced and therefore theft, but I am not sure if that holds water. On her next series of paintings, she will have the same copy protection she did for her first: the right to be recognised creator.
Which has a dollar value of somewhere around diddly-squat. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:34:56 [Permalink]
|
If we consider the issue from a purely ethical perspective:
An artist, in producing art, is performing a service to her society. As such she is entitled to the same kind of rewards as any other constructive profession.
A person using said artist's work for their own benefit... let us consider the maxim of this action: "I will use the work of another as though it were my own" this is indistinguishable from the maxim of plaigerism and clearly ethically unsopportable.
This of course does not extend to the benefit one gets from the appreciation of the art, since this conforms to the wishes of the artist. The purpose of art after all is to promote personal growth and reflection.
However, it does not immediately follow that it is the responsibility of the individual to provide for the artist. Each individual operating in a society has a duty to provide a service to the society as a whole just as the society as a whole has a duty to provide for its constituents. As such the only reasonable solution which I can see is to make all art publicly available and providing artists with some kind of governmental salary based on the distribution of their work and perhaps a few other factors. I'll admit that this is a highly socialist position, but a pure capitalist ideology must assume the absense of a universal ethical system. Of course, what is normally meant by a socialistic system would in many ways also be morally questionable.
In the end we are ethically obliged to follow the current laws of the society in which we choose to remain, and in such instances as the laws are unreasonable we strive to change them. In such instances where it is unreasonable to abide by the laws we must break them. If I find myself in a position where a particular work is unavailable to me by legitimate means I would feel justified in copying it through the use of the internet, I would feel compelled to use the first available opportunity to repay this theft at a later date however.
Hopefully we will achieve a more ethically aware society in the future, that does seem to be the direction we are going if you look at the last few hundred years of history. The society I propose is not viable in the political and social climate of today. And it will not be brought about by revolutionary reform, large issues rarely are. The issues of electronic piracy demonstrate the inadequacy of our current political system, but we were already aware of that; I am sure nobody here is going to claim that all nations operate on strict ethical principles.
Either way, the contemporary copywrite laws are not well designed to protect the poor artist. In general they just aid the large, rich corporations. A musician who plays a piece in an orchestra performance which is recorded and sold is unlikely to get more than the fee for the performance. She will not recieve royalties, should she ask for them it is a small thing to replace her with someone less demanding.
I apologize for the rambling nature of this post... I hope I got my arguments across. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:07:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
International law would still consider it stealing. And as you aren't China....... I also consider it stealing as it does steal compensation from the artist or manufacturer.
That is an interesting viewpoint. Certainly, legally acquired marijuana in the Netherlands becoms illegal when brought to Thailand, but that is because marijuana in itself if illegal in Thailand. Art isn't illegal in China, and it was acquired lehally in Brazil, so I'm fairly sure it would be legal to import, but I admit, I am not sure, and it is an interesting argument.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Also, both visual and auditory art can be and very often is information.
Funny, I don't see it that way. Art is experienced. It does not teach anything. Perhaps we have a serious disconnect in the way we define information.
Maybe we do. I'm not entirely sure what the formalised definition if any word I use is, since they are all defined recursivly down into my subconscious. Again, from Dictionary.com:
4 entries found for information.
in·for·ma·tion Audio pronunciation of "information" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfr-mshn)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
Both number three and number five are examples of how music or pictures can be information. I have long held that knowledge is information which is understood by a person, and that information is any collection of data or facts. When discussing mathematics or computer science, there are a few more things information can be.
To me, information does not have to "teach" anything to be information. It just has to be. I also think that the only thing which can be experienced is information, in various forms and states.
But whatever debate we can hold on the nature of information, we should probably leave it to a different thread, if we agree that the program does deal with art as well as information.
While the program does deal with art as well as information, 3 cannot apply to art as no statistical data is contained in pictures or music. Nor does it contain facts. 5 is a generalized application of the computer science concept of stored data.
There may be no statistical data, but music and pictures are per defenition a collection of data. Which is part of that definition.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And this isn't removing all patents and preventing the issuance of others..... how?
I suppose it does. But "thrown out" to me implies "quickly, suddenly" and usually "without regard to those it affects" and "without attemps to soften the blow". Probably another disconnect.
Your party fails to enumerate how that is to happen. And how does one "soften the blow" of opening up an avenue for exploitation of someones work by others.
You are correct, the program does not go into details.
One can soften the blow by, literally, spreading the effects out in time. One can also renumerate it in various ways, both monetary and other.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R&D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
And why would someone invent something when they can't recoup any of that R&D cost? Pharmaceutical companies exist to turn a profit. Remove the profit from the R&D and you don't have any reason to develop new medicines.
James Watt didn't get to patent his improved steam engine. He died a rich and famous man. Albertus Magnus didn't patent his process of creating arsenic. He died a rich man. Famous, too. Gutenberg didn't get to patent his printing press, and died a poor man. He still invented it, though.
Profit can be made without a patent. No one has patented whiskey, but still seems to be going strong. And medicines has a rather larger market than even booze.
Profit can be made without a patent, but in this age it is highly unlikely. Especially in a society which now has the means and financial incentive to steal an idea and exploit it because they have much more cash than the inventor. Watt lived in a time where such information was difficult to get.
It is only highly unlikely because patents exist, are so widespread, and morally dubious methods are used to prevent people from making a profit without one, like patent carpetting. With patents gone, that particular hindrance would dissapear.
quote:
q |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:12:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
International law would still consider it stealing. And as you aren't China....... I also consider it stealing as it does steal compensation from the artist or manufacturer.
That is an interesting viewpoint. Certainly, legally acquired marijuana in the Netherlands becoms illegal when brought to Thailand, but that is because marijuana in itself if illegal in Thailand. Art isn't illegal in China, and it was acquired lehally in Brazil, so I'm fairly sure it would be legal to import, but I admit, I am not sure, and it is an interesting argument.
The reference to China is in regards to their lax enforcement of copyright law in their own country. They claim that the country is too big to enforce copyright protections. But let one group of citizens print a paper criticising the goverment and they shut it down pretty quickly. It is common for new softwares and operating systems to be put on sale there and a mere week or so later pirated versions are available for general purchase and for much less than the original.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And this isn't removing all patents and preventing the issuance of others..... how?
I suppose it does. But "thrown out" to me implies "quickly, suddenly" and usually "without regard to those it affects" and "without attemps to soften the blow". Probably another disconnect.
Your party fails to enumerate how that is to happen. And how does one "soften the blow" of opening up an avenue for exploitation of someones work by others.
You are correct, the program does not go into details.
One can soften the blow by, literally, spreading the effects out in time. One can also renumerate it in various ways, both monetary and other.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R&D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
And why would someone invent something when they can't recoup any of that R&D cost? Pharmaceutical companies exist to turn a profit. Remove the profit from the R&D and you don't have any reason to develop new medicines.
James Watt didn't get to patent his improved steam engine. He died a rich and famous man. Albertus Magnus didn't patent his process of creating arsenic. He died a rich man. Famous, too. Gutenberg didn't get to patent his printing press, and died a poor man. He still invented it, though.
Profit can be made without a patent. No one has patented whiskey, but still seems to be going strong. And medicines has a rather larger market than even booze.
Profit can be made without a patent, but in this age it is highly unlikely. Especially in a society which now has the means and financial incentive to steal an idea and exploit it because they have much more cash than the inventor. Watt lived in a time where such information was difficult to get.
It is only highly unlikely because patents exist, are so widespread, and morally dubious methods are used to prevent people from making a profit without one, like patent carpetting. With patents gone, that particular hindrance would dissapear.
And a myriad of monopolizing companies would appear to take advantage of the intellectual properties to drive the owners out of business. In that case, the inventor still gets hosed.
quote:
quote:
As for reverse engineering, there are laws currently which makes such an endeavor daunting. And I'm sure that companies will not sell to Swedish nationals in foreign countries. The car manufacturers will see this and say, "screw Sweden, we can't afford to sell to this market as out trade secrets will be at risk." Then there's the whole backlash from the international community thing.
Obviously this argument only applies to some products, like cars. Salesmen rarely check ones ID when buying a pencil or a marsbar. And how would they stop it in situations it is warranted? There is such a thing as dual nationality, you know. And other methods of getting round such restrictions.
I can see other countries starting tarriffs against Sweden, but given that Sweden is in the EU (which is a free trade area, among other things), not even that is very easy.
And it may very well cost them their spot in the EU. It is common knowledge how to assemble a pencil. Same thing for a Mars bar. Basics (of which high technology in whole or parcel is not included) and consumables won't be heavily impacted. But those do not have a heavy intellectual property component. Complex items would be.
quote:
quote:
quote:
As for dying of starvation... no. We have a safety net in Sweden, no one, not even artists, die of starvation unless they chose not to avail themselves of the safety net. From the publicity of 100 million books, she would find a way to raise money, and socialbidrag will keep her alive (unless she dies of |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
I deserve a lot of things I am not willing to work for. Life. Liberty. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of access to information. If I lacked some of these things; I might be willing to work for them, but since I don't, I don't know.
You're right, you don't know. If you're not willing to work for those things, you don't deserve to have them. In the case of tangible goods, you may have to pay a certain dollar amount to have them. To deserve those less tangible items you just mentioned, you have a social obligation. You are expected to make a productive contribution to society in order to earn them. Simply existing does not merit you the opportunity to take advantage of those "freedoms". So if you think you should have them but are unwilling to work for them, you're lazy. And if you would take them without working for them that makes you a thief. But you've already established your level of moral integrity on this issue.  quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Both you and Ron have completely ignored the basis of my argument (for the sake of practicality due to technological advances, getting rid of copyright laws but then solving the problem of compensation by adding a socialistic element to a capitalistic economic framework) and instead are arguing as if capitalistic notions of intellectual property are objective. You feel strongly about intellectual property being regarded as legal property in the same way as physical property. I feel that that is philosophically unsound, impractical to try to enforce, and potentially limiting to social freedoms.
Probably unintentional, but to nitpick, you got part of this backwards. You said, "getting rid of copyright laws but then solving the problem of compensation..." Of course for this to be even remotely reasonable, the problem of compensation would have to be worked out first, then get rid of the copyright laws. And ultimately it would still be a copyright law, only the right to copy would become unlimited after the original compensation was provided and the creation released.
So it seems the essential choice is selling all rights to copy our creations in one fell swoop (socialism), or the status quo (more or less, in the US, etc.), which is to sell the rights to copy our work a little at a time under our own control (capitalism). Let the government decide the cash value of our creativity, time, and effort (socialism), or let the creative people decide for themselves that value (capitalism).
Of course there are other possibilities, like we work hard to produce our creations, then other people who aren't willing to work just believe they have a right to simply steal them (Bungaism). Or the social system, the government, realizes we have the ability to create and therefore demands we produce and hand over the results of our work for what they deem fair, or not (communism? slavery?). But most of us seem to generally agree that a moderate blend of the socialist and capitalist approach is most productive for all concerned.
Also, intellectual property and manufactured goods are not as different as some seem to think. Mr. A works building tangible goods at a factory, gets paid some amount, and buys a car with his paycheck, the results of his work. What if Mrs. B decides in a year that Mr. A had all the use he deserves out of that car, and Mrs. B takes it from him? Of course it's okay for Mrs. B to decide the value of Mr. A's work. No? Actually I didn't think that was a good idea either.
Here's the rub. If the results of my work, the novel I write, should be handed over for unlimited public consumption, why should the results of someone else's work, that car he bought with his paycheck, not be made publicly available as well? Or should we put a time limit on our right to control each of our assets, the fruits of our labor? Or should we, since we both worked hard to obtain the results, his car and my novel, should we both be entitled to determine how long we're willing to keep these things and how much we're willing to charge when we sell them?
Do I just determine how much compensation I need to get for the original, sell it for that, then open the gate and set it free? What if you want a copy of my photograph to hang on your wall, but you can't afford $1,000,000, the amount I'm charging for open unlimited rights to copy and distribute the photo? Wouldn't we all be better off if you could buy a copy from me for $50? Then I get another $50 from the next guy who wants a copy, and so on?
It sounds like some people think the value of a person's time and effort manufacturing a tangible item is worth more than the value of a person's time and effort manufacturing a work of art, or body of information, or piece of software. How much more? I didn't sweat as much making the software. I didn't have to get my hands dirty writing the book. I didn't have to lift anything heavy to produce that oil painting. But in some cases, certainly not all, there may be a much much larger benefit to humanity from one person having written a piece of poetry than for another having built a car. How do we weigh it? If not the person who did the producing, who gets to decide?
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:48:47 [Permalink]
|
A do not believe a country can be expelled from the EU. I think it far more likely that, should the Pirate Party succeed, for other countries in Europe to attempt the same.
EDIT: GeeMack, I was going to make a reply to your more cogent points, but then I saw that "Bungaism" jibe and decided I prefer debating with people of a mental age greater than 11. For the first time ever, I am seriously considering the benefits of an ignore button. |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/16/2006 14:51:44 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 15:26:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
GeeMack, I was going to make a reply to your more cogent points, but then I saw that "Bungaism" jibe and decided I prefer debating with people of a mental age greater than 11. For the first time ever, I am seriously considering the benefits of an ignore button.
Oh, don't be so sensitive, Bunga. Although it was a jab, because clearly we disagree on whether theft of intellectual property should be endorsed as part of the law of the land, by Bungaism I was referring to the political party of piracy, the one that you brought into this discussion. I would think you'd consider it somewhat of an honor if that party were referred to using your nickname.
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 16:19:10 [Permalink]
|
An honour? When it was brought up by someone who has repeatedly made clear his views on my personal morals and beliefs, the moral integrity of the party it was referring to, and indeed anyone who doesn't hold a view of morals that a person's right to his own life depends on how hard he works.
Quite frankly, your stated beliefs don't exactly tickle my fancy either.
I, personally, believe that everyone has certain inalienable rights. Inalienable. Ones that cannot be removed, revoked, stolen, sold or transferred (EDIT: or lost). They happen to include the right to life, liberty, personal development, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of opinion, privacy and freedom of information. Not neccesarily in that order.
Anyone who attempts to withhold them from me, I believe is a thief. And worse. You, GeeMack have made clear that only those deemed worthy deserve them. Those who don't or can't work, well, they have no rights!
How would you feel if I attributed the name GeeMackism to the philosophy of "Only people who can pay for themselves deserve to live"? |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/16/2006 16:24:59 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:12:01 [Permalink]
|
Comming into this thread a bit late... only read the first page so far...
But had to respond to this:
quote:
Do you mean that when any individual A profits from individual B's work without paying individual B for said work, individual A is doing something morally wrong?
You bet.
If I record a song (just an example) and you download that recording, make copies, and sell it... you are devaluing my work. Every person that buys a copy from YOU is a person that won't buy one from me. You are profiting from my work, without my consent, and infringing on my ability to fully profit from my own work.
That is not only morally wrong, but legally wrong in almost every country that has laws.
Now.... just downloading stuff for personal use... that is another argument entirely. Personally I like to download music and listen to it before I decide to buy it. If it sucks, then I'm not buying it. It it is good, then I'll typically buy. More fair to me than buying a cd full of crap I don't like just to get one song. Nobody loses. In the pre-Napster era I can't tell you how many CDs I bought because one song sonded good on the radio, and every other song on the thing was total garbage. Nowdays with MoZilla, Kazza, Bitorrent, etc... you get to preview.
But I can more or less understand why the recording indusrty objects. They feel they are getting less money because some people will just DL the music and never buy.
I think they are wrong, it is my personal experience that I buy more CDs since the appearance of P2P filesharing.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on record sales and a cross reference of people who use P2P networks and how much music they buy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude: we have been through that. When I hear a song on the radio, I'm not paying for it. When I walk past a work of art on the street, I'm not paying for it. When I see a painting hung on the wall in the office or on campus, I'm not paying for it. And yet I am not doing anything morally or legally wrong.
There are many ways one can benefit from someone's work without paying for it, and yet do absolutly nothing wrong, morally or legally.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:20:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
I, personally, believe that everyone has certain inalienable rights. Inalienable. Ones that cannot be removed, revoked, stolen, sold or transferred. They happen to include the right to life, liberty, personal development, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of opinion, privacy and freedom of information. Not neccesarily in that order.
Anyone who attempts to withhold them from me, I believe is a thief. And worse. You, GeeMack have made clear that only those deemed worthy deserve them. Those who don't or can't work, well, they have no rights!
Look out, that giant straw man might fall over on you. Seriously, without going back through each posting, I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that those who aren't willing to work for what they get don't deserve the advantages that are generated by those who are. If you're able, but not willing, to do the work necessary to put food on your table, I believe you have a perfect right to starve yourself to death. If you aren't willing to earn the money necessary to buy software, or music, or a book, I believe you have an inalienable right to just live without it. It's not the creator's responsibility to give up his work simply because you're not willing to work for it.quote:
How would you feel if I attributed the name GeeMackism to the philosophy of "Only people who can pay for themselves deserve to live"?
Straw man again, of course. I haven't said anything about anyone not deserving to live. On the other hand, if you used a more accurate statement of my position, one having to do with one's willingness to earn their keep, go ahead. Let 'er rip.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
