| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mickey
United States2606 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:36 food wrote: Did you know it would cost 12.19$ to fill a 6.4 tall guys stomach at Old Country Buffet? Actually wouldn't it cost $30.00? Doesn't Microsoft offer some kind of unlimited download program involving their Zune? Does that music become void after you cancel your account? | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:28 Jibba wrote: 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? It depends I think. There is a big component of social/self perception that we buy and makes us feel good. There is a lot of evidence that if one feels empathy for someone else one is likely to behave in a purely altruistic manner (see Daniel Batson, University of Kansas' work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batson). It also depends on what you are buying. People tend to be more altruistic with in-kind transfers than monetary transfers, etc. In terms of Rawls, I am not sure how is viewpoint differs from a consequentialist perspective, except it adds a bunch of unnecessary language and caveats that don't amount to much. In all honesty, I don't know much about it. Scientific just means one can subject conceptions of 'good' and 'bad' to reasonable empirical investigation. Anyway, I am not arguing that the social welfare garnered from stealing outweighs the harm to the companies, because clearly the companies prefer to have no stealing and no law suit over stealing and law suit and social welfare. | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:40 Charlespeirce wrote: It depends I think. There is a big component of social/self perception that we buy and makes us feel good. There is a lot of evidence that if one feels empathy for someone else one is likely to behave in a purely altruistic manner (see Daniel Batson, University of Kansas' work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batson). It also depends on what you are buying. People tend to be more altruistic with in-kind transfers than monetary transfers, etc. In terms of Rawls, I am not sure how is viewpoint differs from a consequentialist perspective, except it adds a bunch of unnecessary language and caveats that don't amount to much. In all honesty, I don't know much about it. Scientific just means one can subject conceptions of 'good' and 'bad' to reasonable empirical investigation. Anyway, I am not arguing that the social welfare garnered from stealing outweighs the harm to the companies, because clearly the companies prefer to have no stealing and no law suit over stealing and law suit and social welfare. You will get ripped to shreds by anyone proficient with these kinds of statements  | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 01:42 food wrote: You will get ripped to shreds by anyone proficient with these kinds of statements About what? Altruism or Rawlsianism? | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9105 Posts
| ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
I am against damages above and beyond: 1) Compensatory: An empirical estimation of the cost to the company 2) Punitive: The amount needed to deter people from stealing including the probability of getting caught, etc. Punitive damages above and beyond this are retribution and I am against them. Scientific estimation should be used to justify both compensatory and punitive amounts, not a flawed estimation by a jury who are subject to severe biases (e.g., anchoring in this case). That is the consequential perspective, and the most logical one in my opinion. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are e.g. signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?! Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing. | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?! Why would i claim it, i would look it up online Should i get charged for that too? | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
Once you stop, feds move in. | ||
|
Mickey
United States2606 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: The fine is way too high, I agree. BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?! Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing. I honestly have to disagree. I have a friend who knows a lot of well known indie/alternative bands. They all have side jobs, because as you said they simply can't make enough money from their music alone. They make most of their money from t-shirts and playing live at the Metro here in Chicago. However, they still continue to play. Bands have always made most of their money from live shows and merchandise. I think they honestly love to write/play music above anything else. I agree that financial difficulties could dissuade you from continuing your career as musician, but if you can be dissuaded by monetary needs, then are you a true musician to begin with? I'm not trying to say musicians are not entitled to a paycheck like everyone else, but a musician isn't exactly the same thing as a blue collar worker in terms of structure and influence. I honestly don't claim piracy is a legitimate way to obtain music, but as it has proven it's sometimes the only method for people. While, there is always someone who downloads for ease there is always someone who can't afford the music, but absolutely appreciates it. I think that's why most artists either publicly or privately don't criticize pirates. They understand that this issue is bigger than the monetary loss of now. It's something bigger. I didn't mean to offend you and I hardly want to get in a debate about this right now. I just really think that like anyone who truly loves something, you'll do it no matter what hardship comes through your way. | ||
|
ActualSteve
United States627 Posts
On August 03 2009 16:48 Irrelevant wrote: Fine is fucking retarded. I've gotten probably 10k songs from the net, what are they going to sue me for a 3rd world country? Good point. Although I doubt the law expects you to have 10 million dollars to spend in fines. | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
Apparently the RIAA isnt' going to go after anyone anymore? Haha. Does anybody actually have a link to that actual statement? I never heard about that before. | ||
|
Dizigen
Canada28 Posts
| ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:34 Irrelevant wrote: If 99% of music today wasn't complete trash I wouldn't mind buying a cd from a store, but as is you're lucky to get 1-2 decent tracks on an album. Same with movies, if you put out a good money I'll gladly give you $12 for a ticket and another $30-40 for fucking dried out popcorn, the issue is there's maybe 1-2 good movies a year. Zune pass. $15/mo gives you unlimited access to the library + 10 DRM-free downloads per month. It's basically like $5/mo for unlimited music. | ||
|
Kennelie
United States2296 Posts
Edit: IMO that sucks. | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?! | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
| ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
 . | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Other Games |
|
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
