6 ms·

So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to c

So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to charitably contribute to the coca-cola company's artful soda recipe? And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them? OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work? Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it. And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.

dlss 15y ago
> This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one. Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world. As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be. As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection. edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
- donnyg107 15y ago
  That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline. People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not. immoral Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
    - donnyg107 15y ago
      I meant stealing from an artist due to sheer I-don't-give-a-fuck-erry. And you have no right to decide for an artist that they simply need to provide their hard work to the "pay if I feel like it" system. Is that your right? Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
      - icebraining 15y ago
        You should separate "legal" and "moral" right. They're not the same. Example: Morally (in my moral code, obviously), I don't have the right to e.g. throw racial insults at people, legally, I do (Free Speech and all). So I believe legally, one should have the right to download anything without censorship like copyright. Whether it's moral is not relevant. Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose? Uh, that's not what it does. It doesn't take away the right to sell it, just the exclusive right, and I believe lots of people would still buy it and it would still be profitable, so yes, I think they would continue to produce. But, whether they would or not is irrelevant to my viewpoint that copyright should be abolished.
icebraining 15y ago
And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them? Taking a coca-cola can leaves the grocery store with one less can. Until we have Makers, that analogy will always be broken. And when we have Makers, people will probably copy coca-cola cans too.
neuroelectronic 15y ago
Your problem is that you think you have the right to your idea. You're wrong. You don't even have an original idea to begin with. "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work?" Yes. The guy doesn't even have to be a jerk. What if I said: "This guy is just going to charge $20 a copy for his albulm that costs nothing to reproduce? What a jerk. Is this how the world works?" Well, not any more. The world never worked that way to begin with. We made it work that way for a short amount of time.

dlss 15y ago

> This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one. Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world. As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be. As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection. edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(

donnyg107 15y ago
That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline. People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
- icebraining 15y ago
  People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not. immoral Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
  - donnyg107 15y ago
    I meant stealing from an artist due to sheer I-don't-give-a-fuck-erry. And you have no right to decide for an artist that they simply need to provide their hard work to the "pay if I feel like it" system. Is that your right? Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
    - icebraining 15y ago
      You should separate "legal" and "moral" right. They're not the same. Example: Morally (in my moral code, obviously), I don't have the right to e.g. throw racial insults at people, legally, I do (Free Speech and all). So I believe legally, one should have the right to download anything without censorship like copyright. Whether it's moral is not relevant. Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose? Uh, that's not what it does. It doesn't take away the right to sell it, just the exclusive right, and I believe lots of people would still buy it and it would still be profitable, so yes, I think they would continue to produce. But, whether they would or not is irrelevant to my viewpoint that copyright should be abolished.

icebraining 15y ago

And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them? Taking a coca-cola can leaves the grocery store with one less can. Until we have Makers, that analogy will always be broken. And when we have Makers, people will probably copy coca-cola cans too.

neuroelectronic 15y ago

Your problem is that you think you have the right to your idea. You're wrong. You don't even have an original idea to begin with. "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work?" Yes. The guy doesn't even have to be a jerk. What if I said: "This guy is just going to charge $20 a copy for his albulm that costs nothing to reproduce? What a jerk. Is this how the world works?" Well, not any more. The world never worked that way to begin with. We made it work that way for a short amount of time.