| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd. Been there done that in many forms. They stopped doing that because people showed companies its just as easy to circumvent them. You cannot stop piracy like this. | ||
|
Z-BosoN
Brazil2590 Posts
However I have no objective argument supporting my opinion, music is a product like everything else, so there isn't anything to do about it... copyright laws exist for a reason. | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On August 03 2009 16:58 eMbrace wrote: Allowing people to download your music is the fastest way to spread your name =) Then you get fans -- who actually buy your albums, and go to your concerts. ^That's a positive way to look at it -- (not that I stand by it) Yea, if i can get your music for free and i actually like it I will surely go to a concert which alone pays for an album + some... | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 03 2009 23:01 Charlespeirce wrote: You're arguing on the basis of greater social welfare? According to what and who? Social efficiency as calculated by economists? Ridiculous. Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is one of the biggest threats to modern society. It's one thing to apply it to moral decisions, but completely another to apply to to the rule of law, thereby removing the rule aspect of law. Not only is it not feasible, but it's just a ghastly concept that would only reward whoever makes a better slant.Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post. To make it simple, the point is this: Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us. Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets? At least try Mill's utilitarianism, not that Benthamite garbage. That's like a fast track to national socialism. | ||
|
piratebay
United States399 Posts
On August 03 2009 17:42 Jumperer wrote: STOP TRYING TO RIP OFF THE MUSICIAN YOU NOOB. YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO WRITE A SONG? sure it is hard. most of the music out there consists of the same generic melody and a variation of "i love you i love you, i love this girl, my life sucks blah blah blah" | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
sure it is hard. most of the music out there consists of the same generic melody and a variation of "i love you i love you, i love this girl, my life sucks blah blah blah" +2 Some trivia just for the heck of it: Guess who was totally not cool with Mozart writing down *cough* stealing *cough* the (Gregorian?) chants that had only been passed down orally until then, using them as a blueprint for some of his works?  Life goes on, greedy music-industry-men, life goes on. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 00:32 Jibba wrote: You're arguing on the basis of greater social welfare? According to what and who? Social efficiency as calculated by economists? Ridiculous. Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is one of the biggest threats to modern society. It's one thing to apply it to moral decisions, but completely another to apply to to the rule of law, thereby removing the rule aspect of law. Not only is it not feasible, but it's just a ghastly concept that would only reward whoever makes a better slant. At least try Mill's utilitarianism, not that Benthamite garbage. That's like a fast track to national socialism. Reductio ad hitlerum. I win. GG. Every normative model of decision making I know of relies on consequentialism. Deontological decision making is contradictory and leads to unfortunate laws varying from anti-drug to anti-gay. It is also unscientific. | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
deny till you die brother | ||
|
Shad0w59
United Kingdom43 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On August 03 2009 23:32 Chuiu wrote: Been there done that in many forms. They stopped doing that because people showed companies its just as easy to circumvent them. You cannot stop piracy like this. not to mention we have the right to make as many copies as we want for personal use. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best. Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent. | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:13 Charlespeirce wrote: Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent. Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean. | ||
|
Kennelie
United States2296 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:21 food wrote:stuff Did you know it would cost $30K to fill a 120GB ipod in 128-Kbps AAC format? | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:21 food wrote: Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean. Pretty much. We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return. | ||
|
Mickey
United States2606 Posts
I don't agree that piracy is stealing, but I wouldn't consider it to be without flaws. I just don't seem to understand why certain individuals are so bitter to be extreme on both sides. As far as the main topic goes.. it's clear they want to make an example out of him. However, I think the fine will be severely reduced if the prosecution actually wants to get a guilty verdict. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:01 Charlespeirce wrote: No, when you talk about making decisions to protect "social welfare" (which is completely ambiguous), you've already made the connection to fascism yourself.Reductio ad hitlerum. I win. GG. Every normative model of decision making I know of relies on consequentialism. Deontological decision making is contradictory and leads to unfortunate laws varying from anti-drug to anti-gay. It is also unscientific. Nothing is strictly consequentialist. And how about Rawls? He's kind of a big deal when it comes to ethics. His nonconsequentialism is consequentialist? And I can already imagine that your definition of 'scientific' is laughable, but please define it for us. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:24 Charlespeirce wrote: Pretty much. We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return. I can buy that pure altruism doesn't exist, but do you believe that no amount of it exists? We donate purely to feel good about ourselves? | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:24 Kennelie wrote: Did you know it would cost $30K to fill a 120GB ipod in 128-Kbps AAC format? Did you know it would cost 12.19$ to fill a 6.4 tall guys stomach at Old Country Buffet? | ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
