The Double-Dip Mentality

[Doc]

Im all for music piracy, as I have said before.

But  I dont deel much sympathy for you, you should know better. As Pete noted DVD libraries arent that great - your better off renting. And the first release for sale never has the extra goodies.

Besides in 4 years your going to buy it all agaisn in HDTV format.
NOTE: I personally dont pirate music, but I condone it, for reasons I have explained in detail before.
[right][snapback]99828[/snapback][/right]

Glad to see you back Ghost. And I agree with your stance on piracy. :ph34r:

[Occhidiangela]

GT:

I have edited your original post to make a point.

Im all for MapHack, as I have said before.
==snip other stuff==
NOTE: I personally dont use MapHack, but I condone it, for reasons I have explained in detail before.
[right][snapback]99828[/snapback][/right]

Ethically, the posts are on the same swampy moral ground.

As to this

Besides in 4 years your going to buy it all again in HDTV format.

Touché :D

Occhi

[Guest]

What a pathetic analogy.

Map hack is something we agree on. Music piracy is something we dont.

So simply inserting one in place of the the other proves no point other than that YOU dont understand rhetoric(unfortunetly the lounge doesnt mid it when you make no sense as much as they mind it when I mispell words.)

I will try to explain to you.
Imagine if we were disagreeing on on Texas. You said "Texas is great" and I thought it sucked.
A retort analogus to the one above would be if I rephrased your words "Al Gareb is great." It would be a silly and meaningless come back.



But alas no one else here will call you on saying something dumb, they will only complain if you spell it wrong.

[Occhidiangela]

What a pathetic analogy.

Map hack is something we agree on. Music piracy is something we dont.

So simply inserting one in place of the the other proves no point other than that YOU dont understand rhetoric(unfortunetly the lounge doesnt mid it when you make no sense as much as they mind it when I mispell words.)

I will try to explain to you.
Imagine if we were disagreeing on on Texas. You said "Texas is great" and I thought it sucked.
A retort analogus to the one above would be if I rephrased your words "Al Gareb is great." It would be a silly and meaningless come back.
But alas no one else here will call you on saying something dumb, they will only complain if you spell it wrong.
[right][snapback]99833[/snapback][/right]

The Lounge is a site that abhors cheating. Maphack advocacy is an advocacy for cheating. The argument for piracy is an agrument for stealing.

The same swampy moral ground. You missed the point, as usual.

Occhi

[Doc]

The Lounge is a site that abhors cheating.  Maphack advocacy is an advocacy for cheating.  The argument for piracy is an agrument for stealing.

The same swampy moral ground.  You missed the point, as usual.   

Occhi
[right][snapback]99835[/snapback][/right]

Am I going to have to spring for a room for you two?

Play nice. Please. Don't bait each other.

Now stop making me be the voice of reason. :angry:

[Guest]

No - its sad that you cant handle these minor concepts.

Both are against the rules/illegal. But I happens to disagree with the notion that you can own a music recording as an ethical notion unto itself.

The only ethical issue they inherently have in common is that they are against the rules. We are all already aware of the rules, the conversation is whether we should be constrained by the rules.

You see, you cant handle adult rhetoric(much like I canty handle adult grammer I guess.) If your not going to use logic in your discourse, you are being rude to the readers.

[kandrathe]

How about book piracy? Don't buy that good book, just download the digital copy and read it on your eBook. Who suffers? Publishers and authors of books.

How about movie piracy? Don't buy or rent that VHS or DVD, just download it. Who suffers? The studio's who put up millions to make the film, the artists and technicians who worked on the film, the video rental companies, their employee's, etc.

How about software piracy? Why line the pockets of rich software companies like Microsoft, or Blizzard? Just download the cracked version of the software. Who suffers? The makers of the software, and all their employees.

Let's make this a tangible example since it seems no one feels very bad about piracy.

When I was growing up on the farm this actually happened. A wealthy family moved in to the small farm next to ours, and they knew less than nothing about farming. But, within a few weeks they had goats, chickens, horses, cows, rabbits, and I'm sure some other things. We had a much larger farm and grew all the hay, straw, and grain for our livestock and had our own grainery, and corn cribs for drying our crops. Midwinter we started to notice that the supplies are dropping faster that they should, and for some of our neccesities the projections are for us to run low before spring. Yes, the wealthy people next door were helping themselves to our grainery. I'm sure to them when they looked at it in the fall it was an enourmous stockpile. Experienced farmers grow enough to make it through the winter until the spring. We called the sheriff and the neighbors blamed the theft on their dog. Needless to say, after that time, whenever any animal of theirs crossed the fence it was destroyed. The next year, we actually caught them out in our corn field picking our corn before harvest.

Free means freely given, not freely taken. If you take the sweat and labor of another without permission you are stealing. That is how I look at it. When it comes to music, my stance is that if you own the CD, then you can rip the songs to play on your MP3 player. Music is so cheap. Why not own it?

[Guest]

I only believe in property.

Now I understand the value of copyrights and believe they serve a good purpose - as long as they are used for the reason they were created.
The purpose of copyrights was originally to promote creativity, it was not about "fairness"..

I feel copyrights and even worse the more recent digital protect laws have become tools for the benifit of large businesses at the expense of ordinary citizens, and I dont think they encourage creativity.

On a side note I think its great keep it illegal for someone to PROFIT by using someone eles intellectual creation with out permision.

Copyright laws should be used to only at a commercial vs commercial level IMO.

[kandrathe]

Maybe you could re-explain your philosophy, because I too am baffled.

Can you own a print of a painting, and does it have value? Can you own the 4th edition of a book, and does it have value? Can you own the re-release GOTY edition of a popular game, and does it have value? If you are saying that the work of musicians, working in a studio to produce an album is valueless, then I think you are defying logic.

It might be a nice egalitarian premise that artists should offer their arts to the masses for arts sake, or that scientists or teachers should do the same for the benefit of all humanity. Instead, no, we force them to suffer and struggle through Capitalism to get their work recognized by (Publisher, Studio, Record Company, Etc.) and then the artist gets pennies of every dollar, with 30-50% of their potential income lost to piracy.

Tangible physical objects are easy to understand. That widget costs 5$ to produce. When you get to intellectual property you must rely on patents and copyrights. How do you propose to protect inventions, designs, and products of the mind?

[kandrathe]

I only believe in property.

Now I understand the value of copyrights and believe they serve a good purpose - as long as they are used for the reason they were created.
The purpose of copyrights was originally to promote creativity, it was not about "fairness"..

I feel copyrights and even worse the more recent digital protect laws have become tools for the benifit of large businesses at the expense of ordinary citizens, and I dont think they encourage creativity.

On a side note I think its great keep it illegal for someone to PROFIT by using someone eles intellectual creation with out permision.

Copyright laws should be used to only at a commercial vs commercial level IMO.
[right][snapback]99840[/snapback][/right]

Why would you ever be an author, musician, software publisher, magazine publisher, etc. if the first person to buy your intellectual property could digitize it and offer it to the world for free. 1 copy sold, 200 million copies distributed. An exageration to be sure, but you get the idea. Copyright to me means that the owner of the intellectual property has the right to approve any use of the copies made for any purpose. The law has made it fuzzy by adding "acceptable use" provisions for educational purposes, etc.

Consider the Lamachia case;

A recent case that illustrated this was watched closely by just about everyone in the computer world. It was that of David LaMacchia, an M.I.T. undergraduate who was charged last April with conspiring to distribute millions of dollars' worth of illegally copied commercial software over the Internet. LaMacchia allegedly set up and ran an online bulletin board that allowed anyone who accessed it to copy for free a variety of software programs. Touted as the largest single instance of software piracy ever uncovered, LaMacchia's case was thrown out last December by Massachusetts Federal Judge Richard Stearns, who decided that the senior from Rockville, Maryland, had in fact committed no crime at all. In January U.S. Attorney Donald Stern announced that he would not appeal the decision.

Without updating copyright laws any piece of intellectual property could be published on the internet and downloaded freely, as long as there was no money being made from the endeavor.

[Guest]

Sounds good to me.

Technology wont stop progressing. Hardware will still drive progress. We would probably end up with more business PCs that work like an X-Box or playstation.

And the PC market wouldnt disappear as open source would still exist.

Over all the world work much like it does today. Music and media would be the only industries hurt. A little less mass produced media would be good for humanity I suspect.

[Guest]

Read my other post where I answer you.

[Doc]

I want to pay the artists directly, not the industy. Time to cut the fat cats out.

[Guest]

I want peace love and never ending food for everyone in the world.

Seriously you have to do a little better than a polyana suggestion like that.
Its quite possible that the current system gets more money into the hands of musicians than anything that would replace it.

-My suggestion wont make any musicians rich.
-You could try to federalize music distrobution, but odds are you would just waste a lot of money on bureaucrats.
-There are some bussiness that download music directly for the artists, but with out the media engine behind them, these guys dont make much money.



You cant fight the system without breaking the people its built on.2

[Doc]

With the web, direct distribution is possible. Many artists offer direct over the web services, easily paid for. Artists many have probably never heard of. Artists need to break away from Sony and like distributors that take to much of a cut and form their own independant platform for selling their music. A lot of "deserving" bands could also be "discovered" this way. They would also make more money in the long run. And Apple is signing up a lot of independants with iTunes. Indies get a hell of a lot more of that 99 cents than they would if they were signed with a big name. Artists under the big name umbrellas get less than 1/100th of a cent for those 99 cent downloads.

Until such time that the entertainment media is fair to both the artists and the consumer, I advocate piracy. Many artists also take this stance. Like Korn for example, in their big battle with Sony. Korn was telling everybody to steal their music over file sharing networks, and not to please not buy their albums. Steal everything you can was the order of the day. Sony probably lost millions and millions of dollars, and decided not to force Korn to renew their contract. Korn even had it arranged for exclusive studio tracks to "leak" out before a big release intentionally sabotoging their own album sales. (Back in 2004 I think) Korn was let go, and now they have a much better financial situation and they are in charge of their own music. And that is just one of many examples of using piracy as a means of negotion. It worked, and everybody got something out of it, well, except for Sony. They got screwed hardcore by one of their headline acts. So yes, piracy can indeed benefit the artists, contrary to what the industry tries to make you believe. And a lot of other bands are following Korn's example.

[DeeBye]

I want peace love and never ending food for everyone in the world.
[right][snapback]99847[/snapback][/right]

And kittens for all! Or puppies if you don't like kittens!

[Artega]

And kittens for all!  Or puppies if you don't like kittens!
[right][snapback]99855[/snapback][/right]

Imagine, a Utopian world if only we would all pirate music, videos, and everything ever produced by Big Business with reckless abandon!

[kandrathe]

Sounds good to me.

Technology wont stop progressing. Hardware will still drive progress. We would probably end up with more business PCs that work like an X-Box or playstation.

And the PC market wouldnt disappear as  open source would still exist.

Over all the world work much like it does today. Music and media would be the only industries hurt. A little less mass produced media would be good for humanity I suspect.
[right][snapback]99844[/snapback][/right]

Why stop with destroying the music, software, and film industries? What about drug formula patents? The formula for Coca-cola? Engineering designs? There is open source music, writing, film, and arts of every flavor if you want free stuff, but they are there aspiring to be found and made successful. And sometimes while sifting through the trash you find a pearl, or by popular acclaim a pearl emerges.

Are you a neo-ludite? There were many people who chaffed at the advent of machines during the transition from agrarian to industrial economy. The recognition and protection of intellectual property makes knowledge, education and invention valuable. It makes the transition from an industrial to intellectual economy possible.

In 1981, my software designer compatriots and I had "Intellectual Sweatshop Worker" t-shirts made up embracing the new economy with a bit of an edge to our masters/employers. We knew we were valuable because we could build things in the virtual world of computers that others could not. Not many people understood in 1981 what knowledge workers would do to transform the world.

[kandrathe]

What is different about the Music industry that is not true of any employer/employee relationship? Consider the union laborer who builds cars on the Ford assembly line. How much of every truck does that laborer get? How about the artists and software designers at Blizzard? Did they get any royalties on every copy sold?

Musicians, authors, film stars actually have it better than most workers who work for a wage. Your average worker is stuck in a system where the corporations benefit from any windfall and adulation for a successful product, not the worker. Musicians can actually get rich from their work.

[Guest]

See you didnt pay attention.

First of all even if patents were being done in the manner I suggested for copyrights, drugs would still be protected(unless you have a private labratory in your attic.) As I said the protections should only be removed for individual use.

And as you progressed you stopped making sense. Your laborer comment implies that my suggestion it out of fairness to the musicians - its not all.

I think you confused what Doc and I said.