mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 12, 2006 14:03:26 GMT -5
what do you guys think about this? Apparently its semi illeagal in the states? It isnt in canada. (yes I've read the copyright laws.) where I live it's legal to make 2 copies of copyrighted material for your own personal use. EVEN if you dont own the original copy, and you've only borrowed it. and the courts(supreme?) have upheld this legislation. Some people think that it is morally wrong. Im thinking not so much, (Well It really depends what your doing I geuss) do you guys Download? what do you think?
NOTE: the last two options on the poll are simply because I couldnt get rid of 7 & 8 and needed to type something(Ignore if you wish (unless you do really like cheese (or the fat guy's after you)))
|
|
|
Post by doyleman on Oct 12, 2006 14:15:27 GMT -5
I download stuff, but are you talking about things like music and stuff?
I mean, I download programs that are free/share-ware, and what not.
|
|
mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 12, 2006 22:33:43 GMT -5
yeah, music, emulators stuff like that.
|
|
mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 12, 2006 22:44:01 GMT -5
One of the things Im interested in is stuff you cant get commercially anymore, particularly old country and western stuff from the 50's and 60's. guys like jack greene(sang "statue of a fool"). never heard of him? not suprised, neither has anyone, at any record/cd store ANYWHERE. the thing is my mom Loves this stuff and i'd really like to download/burn some stuff for her. I'm still trying to figure out P2p and BitTorrent and stuff though. I dont know whats good/bad for my computer.
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 13, 2006 1:01:09 GMT -5
your signature is hilarious.
i didn't vote, because i download stuff; but like legal stuff. like freeware and stuff. so yeah. i think if its legal then its okay.
as for p2p.. i devirus more computers that got hit by p2p than anything else. bittorrent is supposed to be safter, but since i don't use it, couldn't tell you.
|
|
mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 13, 2006 11:44:53 GMT -5
Thanks ves. this sorta confirms my research on p2p(Kazaa Edonkey etc) plus most of theses programs seem to come bundled with adware. Which is not cool. there are of course the Premium versions of these but you need a credit card, which I dont have Oh by the way, who polled but did'nt post? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by doyleman on Oct 13, 2006 12:39:50 GMT -5
no idea what you guys are talking about...
|
|
mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 13, 2006 13:25:53 GMT -5
Sharing music and other things online.... unless it was a joke in which case, HAHAHAHAHA *scratches head just behind his fuzzy little ear*
|
|
|
Post by The zoradude on Oct 13, 2006 19:55:39 GMT -5
using programs such as limewire to download mainly things such as music. For more info download...er buy weird al's new cd to listen to This Song
|
|
|
Post by doyleman on Oct 14, 2006 0:00:34 GMT -5
i have no idea what p2p is, what bit whatever is, etc...
|
|
|
Post by thetruecoolness on Oct 14, 2006 3:07:25 GMT -5
Well here's my speech on it.
For one thing if you download things that are copyrighted and not free and think it's not wrong, I feel for you, cause you couldn't be more wrong and delusional. Now is this going to be killing big business anytime soon, probably not, they're still going aren't they.
Also Mr.Bear there is no semi-illegal anything about it in the states, it's 100% illegal to download copyrighted material. It is stealing, no if ands or buts about it. Thinking it's not stealing is just lying to yourself.
So if it's obviously illegal, then why do people think it's ok? That couldn't be simpler to answer, because it's possible to do, and the best part it's easy and anonymous (for the most part). Really by supporting this you support some form of communism or socialism, where everything is available to everyone regardless of their walk in life or income. Not saying this is neccessarily a bad thing, since communism does work for China, but communism in it's pure form does not.
It seems that now that it is easy and posisble to duplicate things like video and audio, everyone thinks it's ok to steal it by downloading it from someone. You're not hurting anyone right, because you're just copying the data. No one loses anything, and you're sticking it to the man by telling him these high prices suck. Ironically enough you're the one leading to the high prices, assuming an honest market. Because companies now have to spend money on ways to protect their data from theft, while also making the product as well.
So that being said, I personally think copy protection is pretty dumb, since in a week it will be cracked and half the internet will have you're precious thing anyway. Making all this complicated copy protection useless, and a hindrance for those making legal backus. So while it would be nice for everything to be free, this cannot be the case if anyone is to make money and be able to support themselves.
Now this new way to share data is also helpful to people who can't afford the big bucks to get their things to the public. They get a small shared hosting account, put their file up for download as shareware, or for a reduced price, and viola instant income for them. Until some sends copies to half the internet that is. With image hosting now adays people are just encouraging others to steal images and no one will even know the source of it, because they don't want their precious bandwidth stolen, so they ask you to copy it to your own hosting.
All I'm saying is I can't wait to hear the news when a partical duplicator is invented, and normal objects can be copied like data. So anyother question to ask yourself, do you think it would be right to copy the tv you just bought, if you could? Would it be ok to copy it in the store instead of buying it?
Also think of it this way, if you spent the last 6 months of your life working on something, and this was your livelyhood, would you want someone to have it without paying you some compensation for it? Now you have the difference between a career and a hobby.
So I think it's ok to download it if it's ok to get for free. If someone wants to create this stuff as a hobby so be it. But I think you should respect people who do this as a career and do turn out a product worth paying for by buying it.
Like it or not though it's still 100% ILLEGAL to download copyrighted material in the states. And a conundum that comes up is that you are allowed to make one backup copy of something you own, but are not allowed to use it, and it's illegal to bypass copyright protection. So while we all cry out it should be legal, is it ok to copy your TV or car as a backup for when yours breaks.
So the only difference here is what is currently possible, and the ethics of it. The legality is not in question, that's pretty set in stone. So while the companies might charge a bit much for things, we must remember these are entertainment items for the most part, they are not neccessary for our being and are not needed to live a full life (for the most part), so if you can't afford it, it's not like they're denying your right to live. And living in a capitalist society it is their right to protect their product, and charge what they think is a fair price for it. So stealing it is doing nothing but making it more expensive for everyone else.
So just some things to think about. You are welcome to disagree with the ethics of it, and even the legality (but you better write your congressman on that one as I can't change that).
I know I don't download things (though I won't pretend I'm a saint).
One more thing, if you think you're hurting the corporations, you're also incorrect. Trust me the little guy trying to make it at the bottom of the ladder will be the first to feel the pinch from losses from stealing. I guess to the individual it's a better deal than just not buying the companies stuff, but I think in general it's not so benign.
|
|
mrbear
RPG Making Novice
Dont underestimate the bear's fury, just because he's adorable.
Posts: 102
|
Post by mrbear on Oct 14, 2006 13:41:52 GMT -5
OOOOkay...so just to clarify ITS ILlEGAL, HIGHLY ILLEGAL, SUPER ILLLEGALLY ILLGALLY ILLEGALexcept where I live I appreciatte your opinion although I disagree with some(many?) of the points made. such as china's cummunist system being a working one. or the idea that a "true" model of communism has ever been implemented(were you perhaps refering to the russian example?)** Also the Idea that manufacturers adjust pricing based on internet piracy seems to conflict with your closing statement that corporations do not suffer. for the most part I would have to agree that file sharing is bad for record companies. but record prices have come down in recent years, so the "making it more expensive for everyone else" is unfounded IMO AND zoradude Limeware? is it good? what kind of risks are you taking(dose it say...slow down your computer,make you vulnerable to hackers etc.) Input greatly appreciated By the by, in canada we also pay a special tax on recordable media(tapes discs etc) which is then forwarded to organizations like socan(kinda like ASCAP(american songwriters association))to offset the effects of copying **I think I remember rodak agreeing with me in the past about the lack of a true, functioning communist model having ever been seen (if not, srry ro)
|
|
|
Post by thetruecoolness on Oct 14, 2006 19:53:53 GMT -5
I was refering to the fact there has never been a true model of communism, because people are greedy, and they typically end up in some form of dicatorship. For working I just meant that China doesn't seem to be doing to bad with it's current government, yeah there is some civil unrest, but nothing like the stuff in the middle east, and we have our share of it too, especially over Bush and his goons. I think the tax is a good idea, and yeah I wish music was free, but that's being kind of selfish. But like I said none of this is neccessary, so companies are free to set prices on these things, and really have every right to. Of course to stay in business they have to watch their prices since if their much higher than the competition they won't be in business long. And I'm sure many people disagree with my opinion, though most of them just go corporations are evil, blah, blah, blah, and then go work for those corporations, complain some more, and cash their paycheck. So while corporations do exert a little more control than they should, copying, as we set forth here, is still wrong to do. It really is stealing though, since you're taking something that's not yours without compensation. As for the corportations not feeling it, it's because they raise prices that they don't. So since less people buy, they raise the price to keep their profit margins high, and also cut costs by firing people, and slimming down (though whether they would do this anyway is up for debate). So you are still indirectly hurting the economy by file sharing. But this is what makes it feel not wrong, as the person is distant from the problem. Everyone always uses the wrond logic, that if only I do it, it won't hurt anyone. The problem is that that is unfair to the ones that don't, and if everyone had that mentality, the entire digital media sector would crubmle. So really it's just unfair to those who do buy the software/music/movie, if you just take it for free. You devalue their purchase. So like I said, just something to think about the next time you hit that download button. In the end you're hurting you're fellow man. Especially if you're in the industry you're stealing from you should really think about that one. I think the problem is that everyone was not fully ready for the ramifications of digital data on the economy. This is why only now do you see DRM things coming up, when file sharing has been around for almost 10 years now. This would be the same thing that would happen were a object duplicator to suddently be invented (magically goody creator if you will). Then you could just copy you're friends Plasma TV, or House, or anything. So free trade is a great theory, but in practice some kind of value must be passed, unless you want to goto a merit system for income (and I can't imagine the chaos from that), or a system where everyone owns everything, or a system where everyone always gets an equal share. --------EDIT----------Found an interesting article on this www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/pirate.shtml . Still reading through it but I think it's a good discussion of the issues in internet file sharing, especially of copywrited material.
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 19, 2006 1:52:34 GMT -5
ttc, i hate to say it, but your responses seem very religious... that is, they lack any actual evidence. you use alot of circular logic. for instance: this is faulty because you assert that if everything were free, people wouldn't be able to support themselves. the question is 'if everything is free, why do they need to make money to support themselves?' after all, isn't everything... free? second of all, and this has been discussed here before, it is never a good idea to start an intelligent counter with things like 'you are wrong and crazy!' it completely negates what you have to say; esspecially when you completely disregard what the person you are countering had to say. case and point: you completely ignored the fact that where mr bear lives, he has stated that it is legal to download. this is not uncommon. copyright laws are not international. america has access to some things that are still copywritten in other countries. does this mean that if i am able to get a book for free in america that is copywritten in russia that i should buy it? have no idea what i am talking about? check out www.gutenberg.org. they specifically say that the library only applies to america, and that some of the selections are still copywritten in foreign countries. also, many eastern european countries do not have any issue with the filesharing mania (because they are typically socialist... ill get to this in a moment...) and therefore it is not illegal. it is not unlikely that mr bear could actually live in a country where it is legal, and you have completely disregarded that point. this is great propaganda but poor anything else. first, as you yourself say, what is wrong with supporting communism and/or socialism? and if nothing is wrong with it, why would this point even be brought up? the truth is that in capitalist democratic america, these words are taboo. and by classifying something in with them, you hope to shy people away. but it never addresses whether or not these systems are actually better than what we currently have implemented. on a tangent, i really cannot stand it when these two are lumped together. these two political theories are on opposite sides of the spectrum... socialism is a liberal movement, communism is a traditional establishment. we try to group them together because they are often seen as the opposite of democracy, and that just isn't true. you can't compare democracy to socialism/communism, because democracy has no inherent liberal/conservative perspective. the perspective is necessarily provided by its people (thus the governmental philosophy...) anyways... because they can react and compensate does not mean that they do not feel it? i think bear has you on this one...
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 19, 2006 11:03:00 GMT -5
it's 100% illegal to download copyrighted material. It is stealing, no if ands or buts about it. Thinking it's not stealing is just lying to yourself. Ummm wrong... so there I was downloading (LEGALLY) music off iTunes.... Sorry you missed the fact that when you pay for copywrited material, it's not. I know this seems obvious but you gotta pay attention to details. Oh and to me copywriting is nice for people who make the stuff, but it's an infringement on my rights. It's absolutely retarded that a company could get sued for saying "that's hot" just because Paris Hilton trademarked it. I'm gunna trade mark the word "a" and everytime someone says it I'm going to sue them.
|
|
|
Post by thetruecoolness on Oct 19, 2006 14:21:46 GMT -5
ttc, i hate to say it, but your responses seem very religious... that is, they lack any actual evidence. you use alot of circular logic. for instance: this is faulty because you assert that if everything were free, people wouldn't be able to support themselves. the question is 'if everything is free, why do they need to make money to support themselves?' after all, isn't everything... free? I will admit in my previous posts I was being dogmatic. Fair enough, though that depends on wether you think people are inherenitly greedy or not. People normally do want some kind of praise for their work, or else what is the point in doing so (though of course praise can be in the knowledge they they will be helping their fellow man). second of all, and this has been discussed here before, it is never a good idea to start an intelligent counter with things like 'you are wrong and crazy!' it completely negates what you have to say; esspecially when you completely disregard what the person you are countering had to say. case and point: you completely ignored the fact that where mr bear lives, he has stated that it is legal to download. this is not uncommon. copyright laws are not international. america has access to some things that are still copywritten in other countries. does this mean that if i am able to get a book for free in america that is copywritten in russia that i should buy it? have no idea what i am talking about? check out www.gutenberg.org. they specifically say that the library only applies to america, and that some of the selections are still copywritten in foreign countries. also, many eastern european countries do not have any issue with the filesharing mania (because they are typically socialist... ill get to this in a moment...) and therefore it is not illegal. it is not unlikely that mr bear could actually live in a country where it is legal, and you have completely disregarded that point. This is true so I recend that statement, merely pointing out that in America the downloading of for sale (without compensation), copyrighted material, is illegal, and in capitalism would be wrong to do. Wether it's wrong in the ethical sense is a much more complicated question to answer, and would be highly dependant on what people value. But in our society it's generally accepted that for some product it is normally the correct thing to give some compensation to the maker of said product if one enjoys it, and there was some effort put into to making the object. So I personally don't see the difference between taking a TV or something from a store, and downloading a product you have to pay for, for free. Obviously there is a difference that one is a physical object that takes real materials, but the other one does too, just they aren't part of the end product. Someone still had to buy recording equipment, rent out studios, and spend time to write the music. I just find it odd that most of us would be pensive about stealing a CD but normally have no qualms about getting the exact same thing downloaded off the internet. this is great propaganda but poor anything else. first, as you yourself say, what is wrong with supporting communism and/or socialism? and if nothing is wrong with it, why would this point even be brought up? the truth is that in capitalist democratic america, these words are taboo. and by classifying something in with them, you hope to shy people away. but it never addresses whether or not these systems are actually better than what we currently have implemented. on a tangent, i really cannot stand it when these two are lumped together. these two political theories are on opposite sides of the spectrum... socialism is a liberal movement, communism is a traditional establishment. we try to group them together because they are often seen as the opposite of democracy, and that just isn't true. you can't compare democracy to socialism/communism, because democracy has no inherent liberal/conservative perspective. the perspective is necessarily provided by its people (thus the governmental philosophy...) anyways... These were mainly used as a contrast to Capitalism, not democracy as that has no bearing on economics. You should know this Ves . Mainly as the difference between the people controlling the means of production (through the governments help in those examples), which is in stark contrast to capitalism where no one owns everything, they own little bits of the market (or large ones in todays case), private ownership being the concept. This is why they were mentioned as socialism, as being able to download anything falls in the realm of the public owning the data and controlling it's distribution (the intenet being the open control mechanism they are using). Also this quote from wikipedia kind of sums up your first rebuttal about everything being free "socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity." Also this quote from wikipedia's article on communism suggests they similar "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement.". So actually I'm curious to hear your take on these two, as from what I've read it seems communism is one implementation of socialism. So it seems this idea of wanting to be able to download things for free is not too far off from socialism, as society is setting the price (free), and in control of the distribution through P2P clients and bittorrents. Each of these having their own rules established by the communities that run them. So internet socialism if you will. Now I guess wether this is a bad thing depends on how far up the ladder we as a society are willing to go with this idea. Is it fair for some to leech off of others, while they have to pay for their goods? It would obviously be fair if everyone decided to let their goods be free, but is that a valid assumption? Will that ever really be achieved? I think we would need to find ways to keep one rotten apple from spoiling the bunch first (keeping everyone from being greedy, as wether it's inherent or not it is pretty well engrained in the current society). So yes socialism sounds great, but is it really sustainable. Will no one ever become greedy and want more than their share, or try to break off from everyone else. because they can react and compensate does not mean that they do not feel it? i think bear has you on this one... Well on record prices they have come down mainly due to having a much cheaper medium to distribute music on, as CDs are now almost a dime a dozen literally (probably are for the distributers). I still fail to see how this is different from taking anything else without compensation. If taking someone else data is ok, then should it also be ok to photocopy books you have to pay for and put them online, or taking items from stores. Is it only ok because it's easy to do and make a copy of the thing, or is there something else that justifies this theft? Either way you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, that is for sale and is not being offered for free. It just seems to me that is seems innocent because there is not physical theft, it's a more nebulous theft of data. Even in a free society taking someone elses goods without asking would still be seen as theft unless they tell you they can. Why is this any different? I just think the principle of taking something that isn't yours is unethical, though I guess in this case it depends on who owns the data. In the US it is legally the Record Companies, just like you don't own the software you buy, you own a licence to use it. So I guess this comes down to sticking to what you believe is right, if you think it's ok to download for free, don't be a hypocrite and put something out you expect people to pay for. So while it would be great so see everything be free, I'm not so sure it would work out. Either way I don't think stealing things is the best first step to saying you want a change in the economy. I still think it would be hard to argue that downloading material that is not free, and not offered up for download, without asking or compensation, is somehow right. Since this isn't borrowing, borrowing is temporary.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Samurai on Oct 19, 2006 18:04:15 GMT -5
I'm gunna trade mark the word "a" and everytime someone says it I'm going to sue them. And I'll trademark the word "the". We'll be unstoppable.
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 20, 2006 5:08:33 GMT -5
now i could be wrong on this, but i think i'm not. capitalism is an economic philosphy/theory, where communism/socialism are governing philosophies/theories, thus should only be compared appropriately. we will get more into the depth of this mistake momentarily.
this is not socialism, necessarily. this is indicative of a free market, which is not a socialistic necessity. in fact, socialism, as a political theory, has almost no bearing on economy. political theory generally has three key issues: what has authority and how said authority is garnered. and what the government values democracy is of the people for the people by the people, communism is by capability and need for the maintenance of the status quo, while socialism is from the people for the needs for the sake of equal populous. of course this is a very basic representation.
i read a quote tonight that i will place hear:
'the freedom of speech has had the unfortunate affect of making important the uninformed opinion'
i say that because this is where wikipedia fails. as was stated earlier, socialism is not an economic theory but a governing philosophy; its ideas pertain to how people should be governed, who should govern, and what guiding principles should be used to govern. for instance, you wouldn't try to relate an oligarchy or theocracy to any specific economic state, because in pure form (theory) they have no bearing on economic flow.
we tend to group political theories based on the level of power maintained by the people. this is a very democracy centric spectrum. most pureform spectrums i have seen have been based more on the spectrum of traditional/progressive governance, and have socialism on the far left and communism on the far right. the best spectrum i have ever seen was a circle, where the left of the circle (-x if you will) was progressivism, the right of the circle (+x) was traditionalism, the top of the circle (+y) was peoples rights/power and the bottom (-y) was governments rights/power. this placed anarchy (anarchy give people all power/rights and is neither progressive or conservative) at the top middle and totalitarianism at the bottom middle, with communism to the right of totalitarianism and socialism to the left of totalitarianism. this is different from your typical spectrum because typically (in high school and entry level college books) you see it (according to level of state control) going socialism, communism, totalitarianism... as if one leads to the other. so no, i do not agree that communism is a form of socialism, nor can i say i have ever learned it that way. fascism may be another story. none of the three are related in any way to economy; economic theory is another matter entirely.
this again, is not socialism, but more capitalism, actually. for a better understanding of how socialism does and does not affect a free market (and how a free market affects socialism) check out western europe. note that capitalism/free market can affect socialism because the two can exist together in a given population (while say socialism and democracy cannot: they are vying theories; it is one or the other)
is it more fair than necessitating an unemployment/poverty rate? (which capitolism/free market needs: a free market needs poor unemployed people to stabilize inflation)
the same is true of every political concept. think democracy is free from this? i have three words for you: special interest groups. all governments break down given enough time.
<><><><>
I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of downloading, because I have a biased opinion. I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you. I'm just challenging your arguement.
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Nov 3, 2006 22:43:59 GMT -5
first, copyright is federal, not state law. you have to register anything that is patented or copyrighted (that doesn't seem like a word...) with the federal government. second, the government keeps a running list, available to anyone who wants it (i think it is on the internet) of all patents and/or copyrights, so it isn't costly or hard to find them. and third, identifying if you have stolen a product from someone before you market it is your responsibility as a business manager, so regardless of what it cost, you still have to do it and, knowing that it is your responsibility, are justifiably subject to punishment when you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Drew on May 31, 2009 22:44:35 GMT -5
As Doan would say "Locked."
|
|
|
Post by Doan the Nado on May 31, 2009 23:45:27 GMT -5
I'm going to unlock this for a bit, especially since it's in the Spam forum. Whose "entire income" is being stolen when you download music? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. When you spend like $10 on a CD, the artist is lucky to end up making like $.30 on it. That $.99 you would have spent on the song on iTunes? Maybe the artist ends up getting $.05. The types of artists who are in danger of being "homeless" from pirating make the vast majority of their money from concerts and merchandising (selling t-shirts and other stuff). That said, I don't typically illegally download music since I started buying CDs with some of my disposable income. In the past I had downloaded music, and guess what? The first CDs I bought contained the "illegal" songs that I liked the most. In other words, online downloading turned out to be free advertisement for them. Think about the bands that have videos on YouTube or songs on MySpace... I've been to a few shows thanks to songs I've heard in those media. Guess what? Those formats weren't around like that 10 years ago; illegal music downloading paved the way for downloadable and streaming media online. Lastly, I'm going to address you, Will. Theft is not the same as rape and murder. I was in court just last Tuesday and had to sit through a day of people's pleas. About 85% of the cases were for drunk driving, with the rest being split between disorderly conduct, underage drinking, and a couple petty theft cases. Petty theft carried a few days' jail time for non-first-time offenders. For first-timers (the first time they got caught, mind you), they got a fine and probation. Is this the penalty you would expect a rapist or murderer to get? Our society has decided that theft comes with a certain penalty, one that is much less severe than what you have indicated. You have absolutely no cause to come in here and go ape on the forum that has consistently given you the benefit of the doubt. When I read your posts directly attacking our members (and our mamas! ), my first inclination was to just ban you. It's pretty ridiculous. Instead, I'm going to give you a strike and let you know that in this instance, will, you are being absolutely insane and irrational. Chill out or peace out, it's up to you.
|
|
|
Post by The Final Rune on Jun 1, 2009 18:45:12 GMT -5
[white]Wow, such a heated topic.
Personally, I feel the downloading of music itself is perfectly acceptable. Simply downloading music to me is no different than listening to it on the radio, the only difference is having my own 'on demand' playlist instead of being at the whims of the record label controlled music media. As long as a person is not profiting off the work of another I see nothing wrong with downloading music.
And, on the same topic, it makes me think of the numerous digital images floating around the web. If we were to prosecute everyone that downloaded a song shouldn't we do the same for anyone that snags a piece of wallpaper art for their desktop? How is one crime of theft different from another?
Its just the way I see it. As long as the person taking content is in no way profiting or claiming the works as their own I don't see a problem. In actuality, I see it more as a respect to the artist. I mean, even if I can't afford to support an artist with his 0.3% income off each sale I can at least support it by showing my appreciation by listening/viewing their works.[/white]
|
|
|
Post by The Final Rune on Jun 2, 2009 6:31:18 GMT -5
[white]First off, my sympathies for your condition. Second, your hostilities are severely out of place here. Your facts are so incredibly wrong its laughable.[/white] I know Americans have decided theft should be excused entirely. They've also decided that the punishment for attempted murder should be having one's driver's license revoked for a year. I personally don't think any act that's intentionally harmful to others should be punished with a mere slap on the wrist... [white]What under any false assumption makes you think murder is punished in such a way? Calculated intentional murder carries a sentence anywhere from 10 years to life in prison, potentially even a death penalty depending on the state where it occurred.[/white] People can disagree with the law while still respecting it, and making grand theft (enough petty thefts will equal grand theft, and odds are they (internet thieves) have stolen tons of stuff by the time they get caught) punishable by a mere couple of days in prison is one law I strongly disagree with. [white]Multiple counts of petty (misdemeanor level) thefts do not equal grand theft. Each charge is tried and punished separately if the crimes were committed apart from one another, lumped together if committed simultaneously. And again, no one receives a one day prison sentence for grand theft.[/white] The whole point of having and enforcing laws is to stop people from doing harmful things, but when the reward is 100s or 1000s of dollars worth of goods and the risk is a three-day time-out, no one's going to stop intentionally hurting others. [white]Indeed, personal theft does hurt others. Corporate theft hurts profits which does and does not directly hurt individuals depending on the scale of the theft. However, the vast majority of "corporate theft" occurs from within a corporation, not from the outside, which is more an internal security issue than a law issue.[/white] As far as the entire income comment of mine, I was referring to how a company that loses money year after year will have to downsize (only reason they can still profit now and therefore exist is because some people actually still have a conscience) and that (in the US, now) someone will be displaced out of a job because of this. I've also been referring to theft of all the entertainment businesses (well, except for porn, I don't care what happens to those people), not just music. [white] - 1.) I've as of yet heard no news regarding any company ever closing down due to online theft.
- 2.) Don't pick one side and ignore the other. If you're going to crusade stand behind all businesses, even pornography.
[/white] ...the odds of there still being a videogame industry in 1-3 years are very bleak thanks to you guys and everyone else who's been intent on destroying the entire industry for years (actions speak louder than words). Thanks a lot, Friends. [white]The video game industry is surpassing the movie industry in sales. It is slowing becoming the most profitable and lucrative entertainment business in the world (following behind pornography and drug sales I'm sure). While individual companies are facing troubling financial times, so are most companies in today's world economic climate, so that in no way signals a death-toll to gaming industry. Most failures of a company occur from bad money management or poor sales of a product, never theft.[/white] Your goal may just be to get some free unnecessary stuff, but the by-product of your actions will be the elimination of American jobs. All of you are sane adults, so there's no reason any of you should be excused due to an ignorance of your actions' effects. This isn't rocket science. When you take something from someone, you gain something and they lose something. [white]Again, the downfall of jobs and the economy is due to over spending, increased debt, inflated cost of living and decreased wages, not theft.[/white] I'm still very distraught that only two out of seven of you said downloading's only okay if it's done legally. I can understand thinking it's not as bad as rape or murder, but you'd have to be delusional (or something worse) to think theft isn't wrong in the slightest. [white]No one has blatantly come out and said, "Stealing isn't a crime". Personally, I feel your view of the damage caused by online theft is vastly skewed, most likely by misinformed and over biased reporting from the media.[/white] I'm also curious about something alluded to in this topic that I wasn't aware of. Did I understand that right that people have gotten viruses from illegal downloading sites like Kazaa? And, have the people who put up those viruses there been prosecuted and convicted? [white]The difference in this point is, file sharing is not illegal, intentionally creating a virus to do harm to others is. Long before the 'online theft' craze was propagated by the music industry as the greatest sin since original sin people have been sharing files for decades, for purposefully legitimate and legal reasons. A computer network at a business is simply a large file sharing structure. The original purpose of over the web sharing was to get files from one's workplace to your home place without hauling around a PC or excess file storage devices. Kazaa, while admittedly being a really crappy program full of potential hazards, is not illegal, its just a program for connecting PCs. The creators/operators do not create its content. You wouldn't hold Google to blame because people can search up illegal things on it would you? Without a doubt your current physical condition is weighing heavily upon you and you come off as quite angry, but unleashing that anger here is unacceptable. If you're having emotional issues please seek counseling from a licensed specialist. Continued hostile words will not be allowed here. Hate in any form has no place on this board.[/white]
|
|