4 ms·

> stealing You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.

by frenchy 13y ago

talmand 13y ago
By the rest of us I'm guessing a small number of people who have high ideals outside of reality? Your definition almost literally means no one has ownership over anything when it is your "right" to take it as you please. How shall we define the act of taking property without due compensation that the owner of said property expects?
- nbouscal 13y ago
  You seem to be acting intentionally dense. Surely you understand that the difference being discussed here pertains specifically to duplicable content, where the property involved is "intellectual property" and much more open to alternative interpretations than things like land or food.
  - talmand 13y ago
    No, I'm not dense, I see property as property. You act as if I don't know what's going on technology wise. But I do know and understand, it's not a difficult situation to comprehend. Implying I'm dense or any other derogatory term is just an attempt to dismiss me without having to actually consider what I'm saying. You shouldn't do that because that's typically the defense of someone who has little to back up their side of the debate. You simply want to redefine things so you can apply your alternative interpretation of ownership in a way that allows you to obtain someone's property without compensating them for it. You feel entitled to someone's work because it's easy to duplicate it. It could take an artist weeks or months to create their work and you feel they deserve nothing because you can copy it in seconds. That's a sad justification. Whether the fact it can be easily duplicated is irrelevant. Someone created that work with their time that they can't get back. They spent a moment of their life away from other things creating this that they can't get back. They spent resources (not necessarily money) creating this that they can't get back. None of that can be duplicated in seconds. If they wish to be paid for granting you access to that work then they should be compensated as they wish. If you don't agree with the price of admission then you don't get access. Thinking otherwise is admitting you feel you are entitled to it because you simply want it and the original creator can suck it. You are saying the creator's time and effort is worth nothing. I simply cannot agree with that way of thinking.
    - nbouscal 13y ago
      I didn't say that you were dense, I said that you were acting dense. I also didn't espouse any of the positions that you credited me with, rather I simply pointed out that this is a complex issue. You have acted throughout this thread as though this were black and white, and as though "stealing" music were the same as stealing bread or any other physical object. The specific post that I replied to was the most telling instance of this. I'm not arguing for a position on either side of this issue right now, I'm simply telling you that if you want to have a discussion about it, you have to at least come to the table with the recognition that there is a rational basis for the opposing point of view. You can disagree, sure, but the way that you are doing so is far from productive.
      - talmand 13y ago
        Ah, ok, I see what you mean by not claiming I'm dense but just what I'm saying. My bad. Also, again my bad, I'm attributing the whole discussion onto you instead of specifically your statement. I tend to lump everything together when multiple people respond throughout a single thread as though they are in agreement with the thread as a whole. I'll have to work on that. I fully recognize the opposing position in this debate, I understand the thought behind it, I use to agree with it. But at this point, exactly as you point out, I highly disagree with it today. For the most part, I see people wanting to alter the definition of ownership for their own benefit to the detriment of the original creator. That the simple idea that a song can be perfectly copied countless times without damaging the original copy is somehow license to demand that the original creator hand over all their ownership rights without compensation is just wrong. It is as simple as the "black and white" example of stealing bread or any other physical object. I would give more credit to discussions about stealing bread because it's possible a human being stole it to survive, no one needs the latest hit song or movie to survive. If time and resources were spent in the creation of the product then I fail to understand why it's wrong for the creator to expect compensation, if they desire it. Rational basis? What exactly is that in this case? Because I've never seen it. If anyone can give me a rational example of why the "I want it, it's easy to copy, therefore it should be mine" way of thinking is justified, then I'll reconsider my position.

> stealing You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.

by frenchy 13y ago

> stealing You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.

talmand 13y ago

By the rest of us I'm guessing a small number of people who have high ideals outside of reality? Your definition almost literally means no one has ownership over anything when it is your "right" to take it as you please. How shall we define the act of taking property without due compensation that the owner of said property expects?

nbouscal 13y ago
You seem to be acting intentionally dense. Surely you understand that the difference being discussed here pertains specifically to duplicable content, where the property involved is "intellectual property" and much more open to alternative interpretations than things like land or food.
- talmand 13y ago
  No, I'm not dense, I see property as property. You act as if I don't know what's going on technology wise. But I do know and understand, it's not a difficult situation to comprehend. Implying I'm dense or any other derogatory term is just an attempt to dismiss me without having to actually consider what I'm saying. You shouldn't do that because that's typically the defense of someone who has little to back up their side of the debate. You simply want to redefine things so you can apply your alternative interpretation of ownership in a way that allows you to obtain someone's property without compensating them for it. You feel entitled to someone's work because it's easy to duplicate it. It could take an artist weeks or months to create their work and you feel they deserve nothing because you can copy it in seconds. That's a sad justification. Whether the fact it can be easily duplicated is irrelevant. Someone created that work with their time that they can't get back. They spent a moment of their life away from other things creating this that they can't get back. They spent resources (not necessarily money) creating this that they can't get back. None of that can be duplicated in seconds. If they wish to be paid for granting you access to that work then they should be compensated as they wish. If you don't agree with the price of admission then you don't get access. Thinking otherwise is admitting you feel you are entitled to it because you simply want it and the original creator can suck it. You are saying the creator's time and effort is worth nothing. I simply cannot agree with that way of thinking.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    I didn't say that you were dense, I said that you were acting dense. I also didn't espouse any of the positions that you credited me with, rather I simply pointed out that this is a complex issue. You have acted throughout this thread as though this were black and white, and as though "stealing" music were the same as stealing bread or any other physical object. The specific post that I replied to was the most telling instance of this. I'm not arguing for a position on either side of this issue right now, I'm simply telling you that if you want to have a discussion about it, you have to at least come to the table with the recognition that there is a rational basis for the opposing point of view. You can disagree, sure, but the way that you are doing so is far from productive.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Ah, ok, I see what you mean by not claiming I'm dense but just what I'm saying. My bad. Also, again my bad, I'm attributing the whole discussion onto you instead of specifically your statement. I tend to lump everything together when multiple people respond throughout a single thread as though they are in agreement with the thread as a whole. I'll have to work on that. I fully recognize the opposing position in this debate, I understand the thought behind it, I use to agree with it. But at this point, exactly as you point out, I highly disagree with it today. For the most part, I see people wanting to alter the definition of ownership for their own benefit to the detriment of the original creator. That the simple idea that a song can be perfectly copied countless times without damaging the original copy is somehow license to demand that the original creator hand over all their ownership rights without compensation is just wrong. It is as simple as the "black and white" example of stealing bread or any other physical object. I would give more credit to discussions about stealing bread because it's possible a human being stole it to survive, no one needs the latest hit song or movie to survive. If time and resources were spent in the creation of the product then I fail to understand why it's wrong for the creator to expect compensation, if they desire it. Rational basis? What exactly is that in this case? Because I've never seen it. If anyone can give me a rational example of why the "I want it, it's easy to copy, therefore it should be mine" way of thinking is justified, then I'll reconsider my position.