|
| 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» |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:03 AM |
|
|
Shame I have to resort to quotes, but there are many scattered thoughts here, a single response is pretty much impossible 
Quote:
Exactly! And now think about why Poland isn't in leading position refering to economics in Europe! ..or Romania...or Bulgaria...etc...
Yeah, all knows that wealth comes from not downloading music from internet.
Seriously, the mechanics of copyrights are the same everywhere, so what did you want to prove?  That we aren't "educated" the right way here? oh, we are, trust me.
Quote:
So you can't afford a cd, but you have a computer? Interesting....
For your information, I got this PC for free. No, I have not stolen it, it was legal if you are thinking what you probably are thinking. 
Quote:
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...
It's not me who throws unrelated analogies.
Quote:
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.
The highlighted part shows: Mate, you don't get my logic at all. Where did I talk about selling something?
If you sell someone's idea, you are a plagiarist. That's all I have to say. What you are talking about is a different matter.
Quote:
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.
But if I don't buy it, he also gets nothing. Don't you see it?
Quote:
Thanks for finaly proving my point
What point.
Quote:
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
Did you know that you are free to use characters, symbols and such as long as you don't make money from it? -_-
I guess you do. Why do you think in every fanfic, people write "the characters don't belong to me, I don't make money for writing this" ?
Because it's allowed to do so if you're not making money from it. Plain simple. Similar to mods and such. I think you've encountered such disclaimers before.
Quote:
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....")
No, I do not prevent anything because I'm not planning to buy his product.
Mate, it's not hard to understand. Whether I get something or not, he's not going to get a damn coin from me. Thus, regardless of my actions, the OUTCOME is the same.
So why is one action worse than other?
The water example.. another bad one.  It would be good he was selling the water, and my options would be: mutliply it without paying for it or remain thirsty.
Please, no more unrelated analogies. As long as you can't multiply something, the analogy is fail, and we don't have nanotechnology to clone things yet.
Quote:
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.
But I'm not buying it anyway. I know that stuff mate, I'm really not dumb, the only point I'm trying to make is: don't tell me that copying causes this and not copying prevents this. BECAUSE I'm NOT going to get that product ANYWAY. See?
Quote:
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.
I understand the difference. I fail to see copying as crime, or even anything remotely harmful. As I described before, I cause no harm. I am NOT getting the product. Why does it matter to the producer whether I have a mean to obtain it or not? He will not get a profit anyway.
Oh, so it's the moral part? "you shouldn't use something before paying for it" ? Well I'm saying: **** it. As long as I don't cause direct harm, someone's ego doesn't interest me.
Seriously, is a deed that causes no real harm evil? Why? Because you say it is? And why do you say that? The principle of law is to punish things harmful for others.
This isn't the case. Whether I am a pirate or not, the guy doesn't get a coin. So what's the problem?
That such a mentality causes lower sales? It doesn't. That rich that can afford to support the producers don't do it? not my problem. I am not able to afford the music. I can play hollier than thou and not listen to it, but what will it change? I will only cause harm to MYSELF. The producer, distributor, etc. will not get ANY kinds of benefit from my behavior.
Think of it.
Quote:
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"?
Don't give flawed analogies then And the uniqueness of internet is why all analogies are bad by default. Plagiarism is a different thing, as I mentioned before. The actual copying would take place if you could make another ferrari out of existing one.
Quote:
Wrong. See explanation above. Not BUYING is way different than not PAYING!.
It causes the same effect: no profit.
And profit of the producers/distrubitors/janitors lol is all what you defend, aren't you?
This isn't about ethics. And yeah, I'll repeat myself again: I do not find this an evil thing, because it causes no harm, if you want to mention ethics too.
Quote:
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!)
Nono, I'm not that good in economy. I mentioned advanced economy in college because I wanted to give some sort of proof that I'm familiar with the subject, not GOOD in it. No way, I'm a complete amateur in these things.
Don't forget though that we're discussing LOGIC here, not the economical nuances. Thus, great knowledge isn't that necessary, I guess.
Quote:
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.
Oh wait, I thought it's exactly the opposite.
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!
No, the statement is my own reasoning. Don't worry, they don't teach us that pirates are good here. Actually, we were learning about Keynes philosophy and stuff like that.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
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
Uh? Where is the sense behind that?
Quote:
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
As already explained, this is a WRONG conlusion. As long as you do not understand this MAIN point, you will always fail to understand the whole downloading issue.
Quote:
And who said it was dooms computer? Or that it is state of the art?
Come on...don't play the 5 year old here. Now we will see if Doomforge earns: a cell phone, a computer, clothes, a car, a bike, an Ipod, etc....
Will you tell me he is a homeless guy living under a bridge just waiting for someone who passes by with a laptop where he can write some posts on HC?
A discussion on that level is lost time....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Uh? Where is the sense behind that?
That is deeper than you think. Seriously, do you expect people to buy random CDs hoping they will like what they buy?
Where can a teenager with no pocket money at all discover all the music (assuming YT is also illegal, as some of you pointed.). In the radio?
Dunno about your country, but in Poland, there is ONLY pop and soft rock in radio, mostly the former.
A common practice of teens is to download many different songs and check what they like. No downloading = they can't discover it = who would listen to niche bands? 
On concerts that happen once per 10 years in my country and cost half of your monthly pay?
WHERE?
Quote:
Come on...don't play the 5 year old here. Now we will see if Doomforge earns: a cell phone, a computer, clothes, a car, a bike, an Ipod, etc....
Will you tell me he is a homeless guy living under a bridge just waiting for someone who passes by with a laptop where he can write some posts on HC?
A discussion on that level is lost time....
My dear friend, I thought it's entirely obvious for every half-smart person that I still live with my parents and use whatever they provided me. I don't have the money for luxury stuff though, it's barely enough to pay for food (yeah I pay for my food myself.)
Yeah I do have a job and a college to pay for too. What's left at the end of the month is barely enough to buy a box of matches.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
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
Uh? Where is the sense behind that?
And you say i miss the point? File sharing is basicaly another version of youtube, the differnce is that you can get so much more down. So should watching vids on youtube be illegal?
Quote:
Quote:
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
As already explained, this is a WRONG conlusion. As long as you do not understand this MAIN point, you will always fail to understand the whole downloading issue.
Nah, the main issue to somewhat subjective. A thief is somebody who takes others property, by stealing it. A P2P pirate gets a copy of it from a network, from others who got that copy.
Quote:
Quote:
And who said it was dooms computer? Or that it is state of the art?
Come on...don't play the 5 year old here. Now we will see if Doomforge earns: a cell phone, a computer, clothes, a car, a bike, an Ipod, etc....
Will you tell me he is a homeless guy living under a bridge just waiting for someone who passes by with a laptop where he can write some posts on HC?
A discussion on that level is lost time....
My bloody point is that Doom is a bloody real pirate, in sense of the P2P word. He downloads for the sake of downloading, he would never buy. Even if there was no P2P, he would still not buy.
I on the other hand is closer to the "average", i would buy it in the store if i like it. I would random torret stuff to se if i like it, i buy a bit of manga every month(the excuse is that i am a student, limited amount of money. I would likely go on a buying spree once i am done getting education and got a job). And i download atleast 2 gigs of anime each week.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wrong. See explanation above. Not BUYING is way different than not PAYING!.
It causes the same effect: no profit.
I only will quote this part of your post, because it is the best part showing you still didn't get it.
I really don't know how to explain it better.
Let me try a different example (I know you won't try to understand the idea, but find a flaw again, but what the heck...):
Why do you think certain stamps are worth 100,000$, while others are worth 10 cent?
No, it is not because one is so beautifull, while the other is ugly.
it is mainly because the numbers of copies available around the planet.
So the price of a product is mostly determined by its level of demand. If there wouldn't exist only 1 "Black One" stamp, but 10, its price would decrease, right? (I hope this is still logical for you...)
So if I get this "Black One" in my hand, copy it 9 times, and give it back to the original owner, I didn't steal, right?
But now, the original owner will probably get only 10,000$ for his stamp instead of 100,000$.
So as a result, due to copying an existing product instead of buying it, you hurt the owner with 90% price decrease.
And similar to that, it works with downloading. The price is determined on its demand. And the value too (and some more things, of course depends on the kind of product we are talking about).
And the market knows pretty well, the argument "I don't buy it because I can't afford it" isn't really true.
Why do you think so many teenagers have already big debts? it is because of the so called "group pressure". Those damn people know pretty well, children suffer all over the world. if you want to be cool, or part of your group/gang, you have to have the newest cell phone, the newest i-pod, etc...
And don't tell me there is no such thing in Poland...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So if I get this "Black One" in my hand, copy it 9 times, and give it back to the original owner, I didn't steal, right?
It would lack the wear and tear, along with the age. It would quite easy, not "good enogh".
Another example: A copy of TES II: Daggerfall is worth very much, even if its in bad shape. But there are still torrents with MANY seeders around for some reason, why does it still contain its price?
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 11:45 AM |
|
|
Collector items vs. mundane files. I'm sorry angelito, again, the analogy is a bad one. Of course the collector items' worth are based on their rarity. But wait, why would you want to get one and make it more rare? isn't that about having the most rare thing? You'd hurt yourself by copying it. And selling them would be morally wrong, but I never said a thing about selling.
As for the whole "you don't understand" stuff: While I see what you're trying to prove (geez, I'm really not dumb ), I simply disagree with it and with the logic behind it.
But we obviously won't convince each other, so let's leave it at that.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Collector items vs. mundane files. I'm sorry angelito, again, the analogy is a bad one. Of course the collector items' worth are based on their rarity. But wait, why would you want to get one and make it more rare? isn't that about having the most rare thing? You'd hurt yourself by copying it. And selling them would be morally wrong, but I never said a thing about selling.
As I said...you try to point out what's wrong in my example instead of getting the IDEA behind it. You are doing that all the time. It was just an example HOW COPIES CHANGE THE PRICE OF A PRODUCT, and how you HURT the owner WITHOUT stealing his product!
Take any other product if you like if you dislike the stamps one. But finally try to get the idea...it is not that hard.
I know my english is bad, but is it really that bad you NEVER get the idea behind an example? 
Quote:
As for the whole "you don't understand" stuff: While I see what you're trying to prove (geez, I'm really not dumb ), I simply disagree with it and with the logic behind it.
This is the first statement I can accept. You just disagree...that's fine and your own right to do so.
But remember: Disagreeing with something doesn't make it wrong..
And one more note for all those who come up with Youtube or similar:
Do you think it is illegal to watch a James Bond movie on tv?
Do you think it is illegal to record a James Bond movie from tv?
Do you think it is illegal to watch a James Bond movie from a original dvd?
Do you think it is illegal to make a copy of a sold dvd with a James Bond movie on it and watch it?
Youtube is nothing else but a sharing without ownership (at least this was the original idea, when you haven't been able to download the uploaded files). Like inviting 20 friends and watching a dvd. Of course 20 people now have watched the movie, and could have possibly buy it instead. But they didn't become owner. While in the case of copying a dvd, they would have become owners.
Isn't this quite logical?
I really fail to see why this is so difficult to understand...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
My English is worse. No, all examples that you have given are bad, because they are either something that can't be copied at all, or concern collectors' items, which are BASED on being unique. Collector doesn't copy his own products. Music is based on multiplying and selling the same CD. How can you even compare things so horribly different?
You know why you can't give even one good example? Because it's not possible. It's what you said earlier: Internet is unique. Copying data is unique.
The whole concept of copying takes it to another level.
I also don't understand why it's so hard for you to see the facts behind my logic, it's dead simple.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mate, it's not hard to understand. Whether I get something or not, he's not going to get a damn coin from me. Thus, regardless of my actions, the OUTCOME is the same.
So why is one action worse than other?
The red marked part is exactly what is wrong in your explanation and what I always want to explain, but fail:
If you do NOT buy a product NO influence on the market. period.
If you do NOT buy a product but copy a sold one highly influence on the market.
This is basic economy...how can you ignore that?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
Don't worry, angelito, I understand the point you're trying to make. This is OSM territory, most discussions would be solved with an oxford dictionary, since most discussions never stick to the essence.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:46 PM |
|
|
This reminds me of Nicola Tesla by the way, if anyone remembers his dealings with Edison. MAD SCIENCE!!!
Also,
If you can't sell data anymore, then data will no longer be a product and we will face cultural stagnation. No?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The red marked part is exactly what is wrong in your explanation and what I always want to explain, but fail:
If you do NOT buy a product NO influence on the market. period.
If you do NOT buy a product but copy a sold one highly influence on the market.
This is basic economy...how can you ignore that?
What economy? How do I influence the market by not buying something, yet copying it? Do you think I'm included in some sort of market analysis that classifies me as potential buyer? It's getting really silly. On what basis do I destroy the market? How do they even know what is happening? I didn't bought the CD. That's all they know. All they know is that they sold like 50.000 copies. Not whether I have download it via torrent or not bought it at all. For them, I am just "not a buyer". THAT'S ALL.
I fail to see it. You just repeat the same thing over and over, without any real argument : (
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:50 PM |
|
|
so do you.
You see, if you weren't going to buy it, then you weren't going to copy it. If you wanted the product, you were going to buy it(see?) the price or availability was just not to your suit, so you copied it instead. Now, you are no longer a potential customer and disrupt the economy.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My English is worse. No, all examples that you have given are bad, because they are either something that can't be copied at all, or concern collectors' items, which are BASED on being unique.
You know why you can't give even one good example? Because it's not possible. It's what you said earlier: Internet is unique. Copying data is unique.
The whole concept of copying takes it to another level.
I also don't understand why it's so hard for you to see the facts behind my logic, it's dead simple.
Thanks for answering ANY of my questions. And no, my examples are not bad. You just refuse to get the idea, because I'm sure you already discovered you have no argument against it.
To judge if a copy is illegal, it is completely unimportant HOW you made a copy. It doesn't matter if I copy my 500€ bill with a photocopier, or if I draw it with a pencil and some colors. It is not a question of quality here. It is a question of illegal action.
And only because the internet makes it easier to copy files, doesn't mean it is less illegal.
So stop refusing my examples with phrases like "You can't copy a Ferrari", becasue this states you lack in arguments. As I told ya, OF COURSE I can copy a Ferrari, but NOT with the internet.
And some illegal copy actions have already other names (plagiatism), while new ones (file sharing) ar just too new to have found their niche where everybody is able to locate it and define it.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so do you.
You see, if you weren't going to buy it, then you weren't going to copy it.
!?
Quote:
If you wanted the product, you were going to buy it(see?) the price or availability was just not to your suit, so you copied it instead. Now, you are no longer a potential customer and disrupt the economy.
No, I wasn't going to buy it. When will you understand that this is not an option?
It's either free or I don't get it at all.
How do I disrupt an economy if both of those actions have the same result?
Please, stop qualifying me as potential buyer who refused to fill someone's pocket.
It's nonsense.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:54 PM |
|
|
If you don't want it, then why copy it?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 03:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for answering ANY of my questions.
Try answering mine first.
Quote:
And no, my examples are not bad. You just refuse to get the idea, because I'm sure you already discovered you have no argument against it.
I feel totally the same about you.
Look at me:
I say it's not bad because it does not cause hurt. Because I'm not going to buy it. Because the effect is the same.
You just keep telling me about some market rules, but never going into the matter of the subject.
Sorry, it's you who should elaborate, not me.
Quote:
To judge if a copy is illegal, it is completely unimportant HOW you made a copy. It doesn't matter if I copy my 500� bill with a photocopier, or if I draw it with a pencil and some colors. It is not a question of quality here. It is a question of illegal action.
I'm not lawful.
If a law sucks, I don't obey it.
Same as shooting the Scots I wrote about earlier.
So I really don't care whether it's illegal or not. There are many illegal things in one countries that are legal in others. By the law of US, I'm a pedophile, for example.
But I don't care about such a law. I care about what seems morally right. And copying just DOESN'T HURT them.
Again, tell me, what does it CHANGE that I have the copy instead of not having it.
PLEASE, NO UNRELATED TALK. A single response, short. WHAT DOES IT CHANGE. In this direct case: I downloaded a CD from torrent. Go ahead and tell me the outcome.
Quote:
And only because the internet makes it easier to copy files, doesn't mean it is less illegal.
So stop refusing my examples with phrases like "You can't copy a Ferrari", becasue this states you lack in arguments. As I told ya, OF COURSE I can copy a Ferrari, but NOT with the internet.
You can copy a ferrari? That's like, pooping gold.
Come on, your examples are simply bad, unrelated. Face it, stop accusing me. It's not my logic that's bad when I talk about things that can't be copied, only STOLEN.
Quote:
And some illegal copy actions have already other names (plagiatism), while new ones (file sharing) ar just too new to have found their niche where everybody is able to locate it and define it.
Again, some things are just entirely different from others. Copying something and stealing something are so much different, placing them in the same bag is funny.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you don't want it, then why copy it?
I never said I don't want it. I said I can't afford it and won't afford it anyway. I will not buy it. Thus, there will be no profit for the seller. Is it that hard to understand? geez.
Things to point out:
1. me not buying it denies profit. It virtually doesn't matter anymore whether I download it or not.
2. It doesn't change the uniqueness of the subject whether I downloaded it or not, (that's why angelito's analogy was unrelated) because there is none. it's a thing multiplied to the number of, say, 1 million and delivered to the store.
3. Me listening or not listening to it doesn't change anything.
4. Nobody even knows what I'm doing. They can't include me in any serious market analysis.
Adress where am I wrong in those points.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 03:14 PM |
|
|
*rubs temples*
Oh, boy...
Quote:
1. me not buying it denies profit. It virtually doesn't matter anymore whether I download it or not.
2. It doesn't change the uniqueness of the subject whether I downloaded it or not, (that's why angelito's analogy was unrelated) because there is none. it's a thing multiplied to the number of, say, 1 million and delivered to the store.
3. Me listening or not listening to it doesn't change anything.
4. Nobody even knows what I'm doing. They can't include me in any serious market analysis.
1. Your english is incomprehensible 
If you don't buy it, you deny profit, IE you take the product wthout paying, hence the word stealing.
2. Irrelevant
3. Me voting or not voting doesn't change a thing.
4. Listen, market analyses can crawl under a rock and die, you still exclude yourself from the market. You do not cooperate in the system, ding this. Great, anarchism is great, but you deny producers and invrestors their rightful money and that is not great, that is just stealing. If you want everything to be shared, then why not go for all-out communist regimes?
You still exclude yourself as a potential buyer and that is wrong because prices will no longer fluctuate the way they're supposed to.
Quote:
I never said I don't want it. I said I can't afford it and won't afford it anyway. I will not buy it. Thus, there will be no profit for the seller. Is it that hard to understand? geez.
Name something you download, then I can explain.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
