|
On December 02 2011 15:54 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:51 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:45 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:36 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:33 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:28 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. Well I could write the DJZAPZ'S SCROLL OF LOLZ (DSOL). Did you read the DSOL? It's legally irrelevant. Also he's being kind of douchey calling the guy functionally retarded and dipshit, what kind of people are you? But I didn't sign the DSOL. You agree, whether you read it or not, to every ToS or EULA you Accept. You are legally bound to it. That's how a contract works. It's highly relevant, and punishable. His words were 4chan-y, but his points were relevant. Are you kidding, I may or may not have clicked a button at the bottom of a large text not written in my native language. Try me. If you get it legally, you can't play unless you agree. If you are playing without agreeing to it, it is literally illegal. I drank beer when I was 14 and that was illegal too. Sometimes (often) I drive above the speed limit and that's illegal. Yes you may very well be right, but when did the law become my standard of living? I take what's good from it and I trespass on the rest provided it's moral enough for my standards AND my risks of getting caught are low. In this case, I consider that 1: My actions are morally correct, despite the fact that they're illegal. 15km/h driving zones are bullshit and I don't respect them. 2: I will respect them if they're enforced, that is, by necessity. AKA: If bullshit rules are enforced, I have to fold and I lose. Not respecting an EULA may be illegal, but seriously, I can break it all day and none of it will hold up in court. And it shouldn't. It's not morally correct to take something that you should pay for and get it for free because you're too cheap/lazy to buy it or you feel entitled to something you can't afford. If you can justify that to yourself, seek help. I think the problem you run into with this argument is that the thing being discussed is something that should be paid for.
Sorry if I misunderstand, but are you implying that they should not be paid for? Or that the current model should not be supported with money?
If the former, that's absurd. If the latter, I agree, but no model yet has been suitable compared to what we currently have.
|
On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities.
I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property.
|
On December 02 2011 15:55 Lightwip wrote:
"Don't be cheap" is one of the stupidest arguments in existence.
No one has enough money to throw it around and waste it. If there's a good way to save money without harming yourself, you will do it.
How about not overspending? I don't buy every good game that comes out. I rent some, I borrow some, I just watch people play some.
It's not so much "don't be cheap", it's "don't be cheap if you have the money, and don't feel you need to spend money you don't have".
There are so many people implying that they only pirate because they legitimately can't afford it. First of all, budgeting out $60 a month isn't an impossible task if you're not in poverty. If you have a PC that can handle the types of games you're pirating, you can afford a game a month. Hell, even $120 is easy on most salaries.
If you actually, seriously can't afford a game, then that still doesn't entitle you to get it anyway. You'll live without games. Use the time you would spend playing pirated games working to get a better job or playing old games you can afford.
"Why should I pay when I can perform a selfish, illegal action for free" is one of the stupidest arguments out there.
|
On December 02 2011 15:51 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:45 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:36 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:33 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:28 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. Well I could write the DJZAPZ'S SCROLL OF LOLZ (DSOL). Did you read the DSOL? It's legally irrelevant. Also he's being kind of douchey calling the guy functionally retarded and dipshit, what kind of people are you? But I didn't sign the DSOL. You agree, whether you read it or not, to every ToS or EULA you Accept. You are legally bound to it. That's how a contract works. It's highly relevant, and punishable. His words were 4chan-y, but his points were relevant. Are you kidding, I may or may not have clicked a button at the bottom of a large text not written in my native language. Try me. If you get it legally, you can't play unless you agree. If you are playing without agreeing to it, it is literally illegal. I drank beer when I was 14 and that was illegal too. Sometimes (often) I drive above the speed limit and that's illegal. Yes you may very well be right, but when did the law become my standard of living? I take what's good from it and I trespass on the rest provided it's moral enough for my standards AND my risks of getting caught are low. In this case, I consider that 1: My actions are morally correct, despite the fact that they're illegal. 15km/h driving zones are bullshit and I don't respect them. 2: I will respect them if they're enforced, that is, by necessity. AKA: If bullshit rules are enforced, I have to fold and I lose. Not respecting an EULA may be illegal, but seriously, I can break it all day and none of it will hold up in court. And it shouldn't. It's not morally correct to take something that you should pay for and get it for free because you're too cheap/lazy to buy it or you feel entitled to something you can't afford. If you can justify that to yourself, seek help.
Seek help? Me and the millions of people who do? I'm not justifying myself because of the number of people who actually download music "illegally, but that just seems extreme, do you honestly think that I need help or are you just gunning for that exciting conversation twist?
I'm the guy who make a decent case for "pirating" games as a way to try something before I buy it. I'm one of the reasonable people who do use torrents, and I try to bring a nuanced view which gets dismissed by you altogether, as if the mere fact that laws are into place should be enough of a reason to live in such a way. As if big companies were persecuted by little Djzapz who tries to gain a little advantage in the market by trying games before buying them. Oh the humanity - how dare I download game for the sole purpose of testing them to decide whether or not I should buy them?
I know that you don't accept that as a valid way to go about things, but from my perspective, you don't really have much of a case against that.I honestly cannot think of a single good argument against that - I haven't heard one... You might, but I guess it wouldn't care for it much...
On December 02 2011 16:04 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:55 Lightwip wrote:
"Don't be cheap" is one of the stupidest arguments in existence.
No one has enough money to throw it around and waste it. If there's a good way to save money without harming yourself, you will do it. Hell, even $120 is easy on most salaries.
As a masters student, I can tell you something. Nope. It's not my situation, but that of most students here in Montreal.
Granted, I agree it's not a good excuse, but you're still wrong about that... I don't know if you still live at your parents and life's easy OR if you're independent and making a comfortable amount of money, but $120 is quite a bit of money for a lot of people. And that's in Canada/US - not everyone lives here, we have it easy.
|
There's a lot of this whole "If the person couldn't afford the game in the first place, then when they pirate it, there's no loss to the company" mentality floating around. This is foolish. You only need look at how things operated before piracy was possible, or at least before it was as easily accessible as it is now. At that time, if you wanted a game you couldn't immediately afford, you would have to work and save money to buy that game. If you did not do this, you did not play the game. Now that piracy is easy, suddenly it's ok for people to play games which they won't work to afford? It doesn't make sense.
Also, the whole IP discussion going on is a really silly one. One or two people think that no one's hard work should be worth any money, and they should freely give all their time and labor to whomever wants to reap the advantages of it. Seriously? I've got some dishes you can come clean for me. Don't expect compensation.
|
On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property.
You have the right to get whatever you want with your computer and internet and electricity. You do not have the right to run games that you get illegally. You still need to purchase the game to get that right. If you pirate a game and it just sits there, that's technically fine. The minute you start using it, it's theft.
|
On December 02 2011 15:59 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:54 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:51 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:45 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:36 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:33 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:28 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. Well I could write the DJZAPZ'S SCROLL OF LOLZ (DSOL). Did you read the DSOL? It's legally irrelevant. Also he's being kind of douchey calling the guy functionally retarded and dipshit, what kind of people are you? But I didn't sign the DSOL. You agree, whether you read it or not, to every ToS or EULA you Accept. You are legally bound to it. That's how a contract works. It's highly relevant, and punishable. His words were 4chan-y, but his points were relevant. Are you kidding, I may or may not have clicked a button at the bottom of a large text not written in my native language. Try me. If you get it legally, you can't play unless you agree. If you are playing without agreeing to it, it is literally illegal. I drank beer when I was 14 and that was illegal too. Sometimes (often) I drive above the speed limit and that's illegal. Yes you may very well be right, but when did the law become my standard of living? I take what's good from it and I trespass on the rest provided it's moral enough for my standards AND my risks of getting caught are low. In this case, I consider that 1: My actions are morally correct, despite the fact that they're illegal. 15km/h driving zones are bullshit and I don't respect them. 2: I will respect them if they're enforced, that is, by necessity. AKA: If bullshit rules are enforced, I have to fold and I lose. Not respecting an EULA may be illegal, but seriously, I can break it all day and none of it will hold up in court. And it shouldn't. It's not morally correct to take something that you should pay for and get it for free because you're too cheap/lazy to buy it or you feel entitled to something you can't afford. If you can justify that to yourself, seek help. I think the problem you run into with this argument is that the thing being discussed is something that should be paid for. Sorry if I misunderstand, but are you implying that they should not be paid for? Or that the current model should not be supported with money? If the former, that's absurd. If the latter, I agree, but no model yet has been suitable compared to what we currently have.
Neither, I was just helpfully pointing out a possible counterpoint to your argument. My own argument, which you have read in close to its entirety at this point, would err on the side of the former, only as long as the thing being discussed is an idea. As soon as the transition is made from an idea to a service, monetary compensation becomes necessary for the economic transaction to occur. My thoughts, although following from a radically different premise, reach the same basic conclusion as the argument you seemed to agree with, although mine is eventually achieved through a critique of IP, rather than the identification of an 'infinite' resource (which, if I might say so, is quite a genius idea).
|
On December 02 2011 15:40 Lightwip wrote:
I pirate things, albeit infrequently. I live in the United States, so I can't say I can't afford games; I have plenty of money. The reason I do it is because I want free stuff. Who doesn't?
But here's the question: why not do it? I don't have any moral obligation to support massive gaming corporations that will be fine without my money. I'd rather be $60 richer.
If there's a good reason to buy a product rather than pirate it, I will. That's why I don't pirate DS games etc. But if I can get a comparable or better experience for free, why would I bother paying?
This is a situation very similar to evolution. If organism A is a parasite to organism B, both will evolve in a way that will harm the other. If they had a mutualist relationship, they would work to gain more benefit out of supporting the other. Corporations making DRM's is like a parasitic relationship between them and consumers/pirates.
Instead of making things worse for everyone, the gaming/movie/music companies need to make the bought product worth buying instead of pirating. Then the problem will become negligible as far as money lost goes.
As for indie games, I sure as hell wouldn't want a DRM-ridden infestation of a game. The fame gained from more people playing it is probably worth more.
In much the same way I have no moral obligation to not smash in your front door, share your family, use your computer and shit in your toilet.
Why do I care if I can get it for free? I don't want to spend money on a computer, a house or a toilet.
It's funny because it's YOU that's the parasite in this equation.
I don't really want to hear about how you feel these guys may or may not rip you off for what they deliver. If you take offence to the cost of these games then DONT BUY IT.
You are not entitled to things that are not yours...or are you somewhat special? With your suspect moral compass I highly doubt it.
|
On December 02 2011 16:05 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. You have the right to get whatever you want with your computer and internet and electricity. You do not have the right to run games that you get illegally. You still need to purchase the game to get that right. If you pirate a game and it just sits there, that's technically fine. The minute you start using it, it's theft.
If games were sold as a service, I would agree with you, hands down. However, at the present moment, games are sold and marketed as products, dependent upon intellectual property. Abolish IP in the law, and sell a game as a service, and piracy does become theft. How to get there, though, is the question.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On December 02 2011 16:05 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. If you pirate a game and it just sits there, that's technically fine. The minute you start using it, it's theft.
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's totally wrong. Legally you're on the hook for copyright infringement every time you make a copy. That's one copy for downloading it--even if you never use it--plus an additional copy every time the work or some part of it is copied into your RAM. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
|
On December 02 2011 16:14 Lord_J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:05 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. If you pirate a game and it just sits there, that's technically fine. The minute you start using it, it's theft. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's totally wrong. Legally you're on the hook for copyright infringement every time you make a copy. That's one copy for downloading it--even if you never use it--plus an additional copy every time the work or some part of it is copied into your RAM. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
Not from the law. From his own (and mine!) logic and morality. Mainly logic.
|
On December 02 2011 16:14 Lord_J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:05 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. If you pirate a game and it just sits there, that's technically fine. The minute you start using it, it's theft. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's totally wrong. Legally you're on the hook for copyright infringement every time you make a copy. That's one copy for downloading it--even if you never use it--plus an additional copy every time the work or some part of it is copied into your RAM. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
Now that's really really cute but let's keep it to real world application, volatile memory copies being counted as copyright infringements is beyond ridiculous
|
On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property.
The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet.
As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them.
Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly:
Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them.
You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them.
Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them.
You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them.
I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying.
|
On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying.
But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please.
Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game.
|
On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying.
Finally some sense
I thought for a minute this thread was quickly resembling a communal free-for-all...
|
On December 02 2011 16:04 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:55 Lightwip wrote:
"Don't be cheap" is one of the stupidest arguments in existence.
No one has enough money to throw it around and waste it. If there's a good way to save money without harming yourself, you will do it. How about not overspending? I don't buy every good game that comes out. I rent some, I borrow some, I just watch people play some. It's not so much "don't be cheap", it's "don't be cheap if you have the money, and don't feel you need to spend money you don't have". There are so many people implying that they only pirate because they legitimately can't afford it. First of all, budgeting out $60 a month isn't an impossible task if you're not in poverty. If you have a PC that can handle the types of games you're pirating, you can afford a game a month. Hell, even $120 is easy on most salaries. If you actually, seriously can't afford a game, then that still doesn't entitle you to get it anyway. You'll live without games. Use the time you would spend playing pirated games working to get a better job or playing old games you can afford. "Why should I pay when I can perform a selfish, illegal action for free" is one of the stupidest arguments out there.
You are tragically uneducated in practical applications of economics.
Not overspending? Define overspending. There is literally always more use for money. I could always use the $60 I get here for something else. I could also save said $60 by pirating the game. When it's 2-8 hours worth of a working day saved in money, that is a logical choice. When it's more, it's even more reasonable to "be cheap." It's not about not having the money, it's about not being wasteful when you don't have to be.
$150 million earmarks are chump change for the US government. Problems arise when they add up. Similarly, $60 for a game here and there, a $25 cd, 3 $20 DVD's and you're suddenly up to $225. Who wouldn't want $200 more?
Your last two points also show a terribly narrow-minded world view. What if someone has to steal food or work an illegal job to survive? Is it immoral to immigrate to the United States illegally to be able to live a better life? Is the INS a glorious moral crusade? Both of those actions are selfish and illegal. Does that make it immoral?
You can argue that pirating games and these situations are different. But you'd live without a job in America as a Latin American, right? Why is it important to become better off?
Also, what makes it so immoral to steal from an entity that as a whole behaves as a conniving, greedy, villainous psychopath? That's exactly what a corporation is.
|
On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please.
You're doing it wrong... Sure - upon your birth, you didn't sign a form when you were born agreeing to all US laws... Sadly, you're still not allowed to kill people.
Laws override the fact that you don't know about them. Piracy is illegal - and your best shot was not to pretend it's not the case, your best shot is to explain why your so-called "piracy" is justified. In many cases it isn't - in others, IMO, it is.
Edit: The law is a rigid POS. Sometimes, it's right, sometimes defying it doesn't matter, sometimes defying it the thing to do.
|
On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game.
In general I think we can agree we despise lawyers. They find loopholes in everything to break moral obligation.
Not really sure why you would go down this path of reasoning. Just because it's not written down in a contract doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you want. I guess general decency doesn't factor into your thought process.
Time and again Ive met people both online and in real life that use absolutes to make their points, which factor in nothing of reality. Good entertainment for me nonetheless.
|
On December 02 2011 16:31 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. You're doing it wrong... Sure - upon your birth, you didn't sign a form when you were born agreeing to all US laws... Sadly, you're still not allowed to kill people. Laws override the fact that you don't know about them. Piracy is illegal - and your best shot was not to pretend it's not the case, your best shot is to explain why your so-called "piracy" is justified. In many cases it isn't - in others, IMO, it is.
My argument is not that it isn't illegal. It is, in all cases. My argument is that Intellectual Property - the basis for all piracy legislation and litigation - is not a legitimate concept, as it infringes on my physical property rights, which ought to be sacrosanct. If intellectual property is non-existant, piracy is perfectly legal.
|
On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game.
I've never signed anything that says I shouldn't follow you around and piss on you every chance I get. It's my bladder, my urine, and my stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
