|
| Thread: OMG You Guys Won't Believe This: Mother Owes For Illegal Downloads |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Market principles. Things only get cheaper if enough people buy it. Just look back 10 years and tell me the prices of cell phones in Poland. And then take a look now. Look 3 years back how much a 21" flatscreen monitor cost, and now look the price today. Check how much the price for a computer game rose in the last 5-10 years. The price for a product is a big calculation with many things to imply. One of those things is the "expected sales figures". This is a mulitplier. If this number goes down, the price goes up. If the price is too high due to such things, the expected sales figures will decrease even more. And this will probably lead to bankrupcy...3DO anyone? 
You have to forget the "fact", every company is as rich as Microsoft or IBM or Coca-Cola. There are millions of companies who calculate close to a zero line. They can't survive a year of big losses.
Do you mind to tell me what this got to do with the topic? It looks fairly off-topic. The tread is about fire sharing, not about the current way the marked works.
If fire sharing is bad, why are the people torrenting/pirating music buying more music than the people who are not downloading at all?
>Source
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What makes the law different than Bible law. What makes it more a basis for moral "truth"?
Its VERY subjective, but i would say that a law usually has more steps into reality than a religious book.
Basicaly we all agree upon some core laws, then the rest are there to make sure society works.
Basicaly the basic laws are worth looking at.
____________
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 12:58 AM |
|
|
Some stuff in the Bible are so stupid. And I dont understand why you need to be super morale either. Why is it bad to work as a stripper, for instance?  I dont understand.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Some stuff in the Bible are so stupid.
And so is mentioning that in a thread about online piracy.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:24 AM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
Do i own this key?
Do i then own the object it unlocks?
No, because there is a finite quantity of that object. With data, you can copy it as many times as you want to, and nothing will happen to the original.
Death:
Quote:
Tell me something, what makes that different than a company selling the CDs?
Nothing. I just don't see your point. You're saying that you can sell things you own. Then, if you own the burned CD, why can't you sell it?
Quote:
Stars and artists whose fame derives not from talent, but from the fact that they've accumulated wealth and thereby power and control within these industries would move on to find their fortunes elsewhere, leaving only the real talented ones available.
The "real talented ones" would be deprived of an opportunity to make money, so they'd go find their fortunes elsewhere.
Quote:
Isn't the law supposed to be for the majority?
Nope, the law is supposed to protect people from each other.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because there is a finite quantity of that object. With data, you can copy it as many times as you want to, and nothing will happen to the original.
See? Nothing will happen to the original. How can that be stealing?
Quote:
Nothing. I just don't see your point. You're saying that you can sell things you own. Then, if you own the burned CD, why can't you sell it?
I say sharing is caring.
Let me put it like this. You can only sell what you own, as I have said. So you own the blank CD. You burn it with data.
And then sell what? The blank CD price? No, you sell the stuff in there (well for most of the price anyway). Thus, it is as if it's your intellectual property. Therefore, why wouldn't I be against THIS if I am against corporations putting restrictions? Both are kinda the same thing don't you think so?
I'm not a hypocrite.
Quote:
The "real talented ones" would be deprived of an opportunity to make money, so they'd go find their fortunes elsewhere.
Yes they would go and find their fortunes elsewhere, since they should be using talent here, not seeking fortune. I linked to a guy who works in the industry and his opinion. Obviously that's not enough for you, because you can always link just 1 guy who is against this and that's going to be proof, no two ways about it.
Quote:
Nope, the law is supposed to protect people from each other.
Cool, but the sharing does not damage anyone, including the original data btw.
I suspect that it is capitalism's way, again, of trying to bend the rules, make people less altruistic (sharing), just so it can use those as arguments that "it's human nature" later.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:33 AM |
|
|
Ok last try, then you all can justify it to yourself all you like. Let us take the recipe of KFC's chicken. Not the actual chicken, but the recipe. Say somebody finds it and starts using it, selling the result. Hey, it's only 'intellectual' property right? So its ok?
Sorry, no it is not ok. I don't care if you share files (of any kind) I really don't. Its the justification. "Oh I should be special and not have to obey these laws because I am (insert reason)". But, by all means, justify it to yourself however makes you sleep better at night.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:49 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:03, 22 Jun 2009.
|
So - long story short - if I find and use a recipe for chicken I should not be able to sleep at night?
"Forgive me father for I have watched the Jamie Oliver show."
Some time ago, people shared recipes freely to anyone who wanted to learn. Now some people hold monopolies on them, protecting themselves with laws and suits and bickering to earn as much money as possible on anything, while keeping others from doing the same. I tend to sleep quite well at night regardless of what those people, along with their popular quasi-morale, try to tell me.
Maybe one day I'll get enlightened and realize the error of my ways. But that's yet to happen.
Please note; I don't consider copyright laws too insensible. It's just that I am against generalization of any sort; and many inherently alright laws and ideas lose their point in the seas of misuse and oversaturation. See political correctness.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 03:06 AM |
|
|
Death:
Quote:
How can that be stealing?
It's not stealing. It's theft of intellectual property - a different crime.
Quote:
No, you sell the stuff in there (well for most of the price anyway). Thus, it is as if it's your intellectual property.
Not at all. You're not selling it as if it was your intellectual property. If you were to find that CD in the street and sell it, it wouldn't be any different.
Quote:
Yes they would go and find their fortunes elsewhere, since they should be using talent here, not seeking fortune.
That's a value judgement. I'm not making any of those.
Bak:
You watched a cooking show. For that there can be no forgiveness.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe because you are a bit too young to understand the principles of common business laws?
Maybe I'm not naive enough to follow them. 
Quote:
So you think it is ok everybody can download Windows Vista for free? Or another example: Big football match in Poland: Legia vs Lech. Big stadium. 50,000 visitors. 1 buys a ticket and makes 49,000 copies afterwards. Why should they all pay full prize, when only 2 minutes of this game will be interesting?
But if they fear it won't be interesting, they won't buy it anyway, so what's the difference if the match is watched by 1000 fans with legal tickets and 49 000 empty seats or 1000 fans with legal tickets and the rest with copied? From profit-point-of-view, none. Keep in mind that I talk about people who really can't/don't want to afford it anyways because of the price barrier. Not the rich guys - I'm not rich and I can't speak on rich people's behalf.
Also, the football match example is a bit off because the stadium has limited capacity, so in fact, people with "copied tickets" deny the possibility to watch the match for the rest. Doesn't happen in the case of music, where there is no capacity at all and you don't deny anything except of virtual profits for company, denied already by the lack of your cash.
Quote:
As I stated in my reply to theDeath already, it seems you are too young for the principles of business laws and all stuff which belongs to that. Ever heard of the term "patent"? If so, please explain why you think such a law exists. If you can explain it correctly, you will have your answer about illegal downloads.
Argh. New argument: you're too young? ;D
Come on. Give me the real ones. Patents? What of them?
Why such a law exists? To ensure the one who developed something will be given credit for it. Do you see me telling people to steal beta blizzard games and sell them under the company name of "firestorm" claiming they are the one to make it?
No. All I'm talking about is personal use.. Patents are everything but about it.
Quote:
What argument is that? If you take away 1 dollar from a billionaire, it will surley NOT hurt his pocket in anyway. But it is STILL stealing. Think about your arguments a bit more doomforge, because you are still on the "what no one knows/hears is not bad" trip.
But with copying, I do not take any dollar from anyone. I copy. And you still can't explain what's wrong with it.
Quote:
Ok..now I will take your role and argue the way you do: I go on the street and kill a homeless guy. No one will miss him. It is even better if those people don't sit around on our streets and disturb our views. No one (except the homeless of course, but his life was doomed anyway) is harmed.
So my action was justified and all good!
Extremely pointless analogy. Killing is hurting someone. Copying isn't because.. because I gave a ton of examples already. How can I hurt someone by not buying their product? It's legal not to. If I take another action that ends with the same outcome, without anyone taking an actual loss, why is it different?
tell me.
Quote:
Wrong. If a poor could get everything he wants for free, the richer people will do the same sooner or later. Business broken. If I can't afford a ferrari, I have to look for a cheaper car instead of stealing a ferrari.
Another bad analogy. Can you multiply a ferrari? No? no. Then your example is unrelated.
Quote:
Sorry, also wrong. Our modern business works mostly in a quite simple way: "Supply and demand". If he "demand" part won't work well because there is a different way of getting hand on the supplied things, the market will break.
I have enough advanced economy in college, thank you. Anyway, that means not buying is also wrong, because it breaks the market.
Wait, you aren't that naive to believe me not copying will make me actually BUT that overpriced stuff, are you.
Quote:
Market principles. Things only get cheaper if enough people buy it. Just look back 10 years and tell me the prices of cell phones in Poland. And then take a look now. Look 3 years back how much a 21" flatscreen monitor cost, and now look the price today. Check how much the price for a computer game rose in the last 5-10 years. The price for a product is a big calculation with many things to imply. One of those things is the "expected sales figures". This is a mulitplier. If this number goes down, the price goes up. If the price is too high due to such things, the expected sales figures will decrease even more. And this will probably lead to bankrupcy...3DO anyone?
You have to forget the "fact", every company is as rich as Microsoft or IBM or Coca-Cola. There are millions of companies who calculate close to a zero line. They can't survive a year of big losses.
My friend, but you seem to reasonate that things I won't copy, I buy. It's wrong again, how many times do I need to repeat myself? I will not increase the sales in any way if I can't afford the game. Whether I copy it or not is completely unrelated to what the company affords because I won't buy it anyway.
Waiting for better arguments, mate..
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok last try, then you all can justify it to yourself all you like. Let us take the recipe of KFC's chicken. Not the actual chicken, but the recipe. Say somebody finds it and starts using it, selling the result. Hey, it's only 'intellectual' property right? So its ok?
Hello, we're talking about personal use.
If I "steal" the recipe to make a meal for myself and never sell it, how horrible it is!!!!
I don't understand why do you mix those things. I am against plagiarism and selling the work of others, but it's an entirely different thing.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:12 AM |
|
|
She needs the DEATH PENALTY!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:17 AM |
|
|
No..we are talking about taking music and putting it on sites like Kazaa where millions of people download it for nothing. Big difference.
Maybe this will finally break the barrier. Let us say that a new author (one never published, not rich..in fact has an elderly mother who he needs money for an operation for) writes THE best story IN THE WORLD, ever. He finishes up, and mails it to a publisher and waits to see if they accept it. On its way, some guy cracked the system and gets a copy. He slaps his name on it and posts it onto thousands of sites (not charging for it, just for the fame).
These thousands of sites gets millions of visitors, and they all read this book for free, and most copy it to their computers..where they can read it any time. Because of this, that unknown author doesn't get published (too many people have free copies for the publisher to figure it is worthwhile). While he can sue, the guy made no money, the sites made no money, and he will get pretty much nothing. Is that right?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:19 AM |
|
|
Oh, and to all you lawful guys:
You say that it's wrong because law prohibits it.
There are laws like "you can shoot Scottish people with a bow on Sundays" (it's true, too - I read about a set of ridiculous old laws somewhere), would you follow them?
No? Then you don't have the right to use that argument.
Law isn't always fair and you shouldn't depend on it that much unless you want to be a blind religious-type of follower that would actually put an arrow through some Scottish guy's eye "because the law says so", without a moment of thought put into it.
I put a bit thought into that "copyright law" thing and I really don't think it's something that's a crime.
Mytical, that's another case of beta-stealing. Yeah, it's wrong - the guy put a lot of trust in this guy. It's something different from anonymous people copying your work for personal use.
And it's not for personal use. The guy put something in the internet just for the heck of it. It's not like, he copied the text to read at home himself. It's different again.
Different again, again and again. The case we're talking about is unique. Why do you insist on unrelated analogies? Stealing cars, stealing beta books/games, they are all bad things, I agree - but unrelated.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:23 AM |
|
|
To you "I am special and deserve special treatment because of X" guys.
Yeah there are some laws that you dont want to follow blindly, but lets call a duck a duck shall we. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck chances are it isn't a lion.
Hey if everybody else is doing it, you might as well though. Jump off that bridge, everybody else is. 
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey if everybody else is doing it, you might as well though. Jump off that bridge, everybody else is.
Well don't forget that we're not talking about people with impaired judgment.
I don't give a rat's *** about how many people are doing it. I'm not the type of guy that ever looks up to majority for support 
I'm still waiting for someone to counter my arguments with something that will make me change my mind. yes it's possible, despite what the HC sociogram says But they really have to be good, convincing and logical.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 09:15 AM |
|
|
One of the main arguments I see here:
"If a person accepts free pirated music, then even if there had been no pirate, they would still not have paid money. Instead they would simply go without the music."
Is this really a fair assumption? Do you really believe that this is 100% true?
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Market principles. Things only get cheaper if enough people buy it. Just look back 10 years and tell me the prices of cell phones in Poland. And then take a look now. Look 3 years back how much a 21" flatscreen monitor cost, and now look the price today. Check how much the price for a computer game rose in the last 5-10 years. The price for a product is a big calculation with many things to imply. One of those things is the "expected sales figures". This is a mulitplier. If this number goes down, the price goes up. If the price is too high due to such things, the expected sales figures will decrease even more. And this will probably lead to bankrupcy...3DO anyone?
You have to forget the "fact", every company is as rich as Microsoft or IBM or Coca-Cola. There are millions of companies who calculate close to a zero line. They can't survive a year of big losses.
Do you mind to tell me what this got to do with the topic? It looks fairly off-topic. The tread is about fire sharing, not about the current way the marked works.
If you fail to see that, it is for sure not worth spending my time explaining it from the very beginning. And it shows pretty well why you do not understand why copying/pirating stuff is illegal.
Just one hint: The red marked part is the REASON why file sharing is illegal.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 09:43 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 09:46, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe because you are a bit too young to understand the principles of common business laws?
Maybe I'm not naive enough to follow them.
Exactly! And now think about why Poland isn't in leading position refering to economics in Europe! ..or Romania...or Bulgaria...etc...
Quote:
But if they fear it won't be interesting, they won't buy it anyway, so what's the difference if the match is watched by 1000 fans with legal tickets and 49 000 empty seats or 1000 fans with legal tickets and the rest with copied? From profit-point-of-view, none. Keep in mind that I talk about people who really can't/don't want to afford it anyways because of the price barrier. Not the rich guys - I'm not rich and I can't speak on rich people's behalf.
So you can't afford a cd, but you have a computer? Interesting....
Quote:
Also, the football match example is a bit off because the stadium has limited capacity, so in fact, people with "copied tickets" deny the possibility to watch the match for the rest. Doesn't happen in the case of music, where there is no capacity at all and you don't deny anything except of virtual profits for company, denied already by the lack of your cash.
Again you didn't get the main idea behind my analogy. You are similar to TheDeath...instead of trying to understand something, you only try to find a flaw. That way, a discussion is sensless...
Quote:
Come on. Give me the real ones. Patents? What of them?
Why such a law exists? To ensure the one who developed something will be given credit for it.
Now I have you where I wanted you 
If I copy his products and sell it, (following your and TheDeath's logic), I do NOT steal anything from him, because he STILL has his own product.
BUT...now he won't get as many profit from his idea as expected...and his whole work (research etc..) isn't awarded as it should be.
And exatcly THIS is the idea behind file sharing. You call it "the rich getting richer", which is probably true in certain cases, but still the MAIN idea is the award for efforts which get lost.
Thanks for finaly proving my point
Quote:
No. All I'm talking about is personal use.. Patents are everything but about it.
They are EXACTLY about it! Binabik made a great example. Just take a t-shirt and print the big APPLE symbol on it. Now go into an Apple branch office and wait what happens
Quote:
Quote:
What argument is that? If you take away 1 dollar from a billionaire, it will surley NOT hurt his pocket in anyway. But it is STILL stealing. Think about your arguments a bit more doomforge, because you are still on the "what no one knows/hears is not bad" trip.
But with copying, I do not take any dollar from anyone. I copy. And you still can't explain what's wrong with it.
Of course not directly, but you prevent a DESERVED one from getting in his pocket. It is like cutting a water pipe...of course you do not steal the water OUT OF HIS HANDS...but you prevent it from GETTING in his hands. And this is the point which you all fail to see ("The rich are becoming richer....")
Quote:
Quote:
Ok..now I will take your role and argue the way you do: I go on the street and kill a homeless guy. No one will miss him. It is even better if those people don't sit around on our streets and disturb our views. No one (except the homeless of course, but his life was doomed anyway) is harmed.
So my action was justified and all good!
Extremely pointless analogy. Killing is hurting someone. Copying isn't because.. because I gave a ton of examples already. How can I hurt someone by not buying their product? It's legal not to.
As I described above...basic market laws...if you do NOT buy a product...the expected sales figures will decrease...so the number of products coming in the market for selling will decrease also. Therefor the price will raise, so the company can still make profit. But now the product is probably too expensive for others who wanted to buy it, they won't buy it now. This will end in a negative wage-price spiral.
You first have to understand the difference between: NOT buying a product (including not getting in posession at all), and not paying for a product (but getting in posession). If you understand that, you may understand the illegality behind downloading copyright products.
Quote:
Quote:
Wrong. If a poor could get everything he wants for free, the richer people will do the same sooner or later. Business broken. If I can't afford a ferrari, I have to look for a cheaper car instead of stealing a ferrari.
Another bad analogy. Can you multiply a ferrari? No? no. Then your example is unrelated.
Please don't always try to get flaws in an analogy, because the internet offers unique technics, which are not able to be copied on other products. And of course you can copy a ferrari  Ever heard of "plagiarism"?
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, also wrong. Our modern business works mostly in a quite simple way: "Supply and demand". If he "demand" part won't work well because there is a different way of getting hand on the supplied things, the market will break.
I have enough advanced economy in college, thank you. Anyway, that means not buying is also wrong, because it breaks the market.
Wrong. See explanation above. Not BUYING is way different than not PAYING!.
Quote:
Wait, you aren't that naive to believe me not copying will make me actually BUT that overpriced stuff, are you.
Exatcly. As I said (and you said you ahve advanced knowledge of economy, therfore I am sure you know pretty well why it is like that!)
Quote:
My friend, but you seem to reasonate that things I won't copy, I buy. It's wrong again, how many times do I need to repeat myself?
NO, I do not!!! It is not important (for the market) if you buy it or not. But it is important if you get it without paying.
Quote:
I will not increase the sales in any way if I can't afford the game. Whether I copy it or not is completely unrelated to what the company affords because I won't buy it anyway.
If this statement is the result of your economy teaching, you should really have a serious word with your teacher. And I am serious about that!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 10:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do i own this key?
Do i then own the object it unlocks?
No, because there is a finite quantity of that object. With data, you can copy it as many times as you want to, and nothing will happen to the original.
The CD contains DATA, and its thus to the key and what it unlocks.
Basicaly:
* CD = Key
* DATA = What it unlocks
Death:
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me something, what makes that different than a company selling the CDs?
Nothing. I just don't see your point. You're saying that you can sell things you own. Then, if you own the burned CD, why can't you sell it?
So i ask, if you got a key..... can you sell what it unlocks? If you bought a CD WITH software, then you the copi of the software. Then you also can sell it.
However, if your making money of other peoples work........ by burning that out and selling it, then we are talking breaking the law.
It would be like selling fake house deeds.
Quote:
He finishes up, and mails it to a publisher and waits to see if they accept it. On its way, some guy cracked the system and gets a copy. He slaps his name on it and posts it onto thousands of sites (not charging for it, just for the fame).
These thousands of sites gets millions of visitors, and they all read this book for free, and most copy it to their computers..where they can read it any time. Because of this, that unknown author doesn't get published (too many people have free copies for the publisher to figure it is worthwhile). While he can sue, the guy made no money, the sites made no money, and he will get pretty much nothing. Is that right?
......................... Do you mind to get on topic? This is not what we are talking about, this involes BREAKING the copyleft. Ripping of others peoples work.
I as well Doomforge(i guess), theDeath, agree on that is something morally wrong.
Quote:
One of the main arguments I see here:
"If a person accepts free pirated music, then even if there had been no pirate, they would still not have paid money. Instead they would simply go without the music."
Is this really a fair assumption? Do you really believe that this is 100% true?
Look at it another way:
*With youtube you listen to all sorts of music
*Would you have discovered that good music if there was no youtube?
*Most likely, very little of it
*Thus you would not have bought that much of it
Youtube is not much different from file sharing, it does the exact same job.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Market principles. Things only get cheaper if enough people buy it. Just look back 10 years and tell me the prices of cell phones in Poland. And then take a look now. Look 3 years back how much a 21" flatscreen monitor cost, and now look the price today. Check how much the price for a computer game rose in the last 5-10 years. The price for a product is a big calculation with many things to imply. One of those things is the "expected sales figures". This is a mulitplier. If this number goes down, the price goes up. If the price is too high due to such things, the expected sales figures will decrease even more. And this will probably lead to bankrupcy...3DO anyone?
You have to forget the "fact", every company is as rich as Microsoft or IBM or Coca-Cola. There are millions of companies who calculate close to a zero line. They can't survive a year of big losses.
Do you mind to tell me what this got to do with the topic? It looks fairly off-topic. The tread is about fire sharing, not about the current way the marked works.
If you fail to see that, it is for sure not worth spending my time explaining it from the very beginning. And it shows pretty well why you do not understand why copying/pirating stuff is illegal.
Quote:
Ok last try, then you all can justify it to yourself all you like. Let us take the recipe of KFC's chicken. Not the actual chicken, but the recipe. Say somebody finds it and starts using it, selling the result. Hey, it's only 'intellectual' property right? So its ok?
You just do not get it do you?
Quote:
Quote:
I will not increase the sales in any way if I can't afford the game. Whether I copy it or not is completely unrelated to what the company affords because I won't buy it anyway.
Quote:
If this statement is the result of your economy teaching, you should really have a serious word with your teacher. And I am serious about that!
Another thing in the exact same lane:
*If i did not discover my favorite band, would i support them?
*I would not, and thus they lost potential earnings
He just puts it in a VERY messy way.
And he said: "If i lack the money to buy something, would i then harm the company that sells it?"
Well:
*You would not buy it
*But using p2p to get files, is not stealing since the company does not lose anything
*And who said it was dooms computer? Or that it is state of the art?
____________
|
| |
|
|
