Student fined $675K for 30 music track downloads - Page 7

On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote:
may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.

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)

On August 03 2009 23:01 Charlespeirce wrote:


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?

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"

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.

On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote:
I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.

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.

On August 04 2009 01:21 food wrote:stuff

On August 04 2009 01:21 food wrote:


Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.

On August 04 2009 01:01 Charlespeirce wrote:


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.

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.

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?