SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 456
  1. #326
    ✯✯✯ silver trophybronze trophy php_daemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,284
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    It's not important in the long run.
    And that's the biggest issue we're facing.
    Saul

  2. #327
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post


    Of course the public has no claim on anyone's work, that's not the point. This isn't a matter of binary yours/mine ownership, your work will always be your work but as soon as I experience it it becomes mine also. Now I don't "own" it and I cannot take it away from you, but it is a part of my experience and that makes it part of me.
    Uhh, you added this while I was writing my response.

    Of course the experience becomes yours when listening or seeing something. But that is really besides the point and not something that could be called public domain
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  3. #328
    SitePoint Member mugloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    The qualifier to creating laws is the natural right of the individual as a human being. The right that this individual has to the creations of his mind. When the right of the individual is protected, all men (man qua man) are protected.
    And how do we protect society from individuals?


    There is no dispute of ownership when rights of individuals are protected, only free trade and exchange of ideas without force are the interactions between men then. Laws are based in an ethics that protects and respects the rights of the individual not the so called "need" by the population at large.
    This only works on the assumption that everything is owned by individuals, what about the commons? (culture etc.)
    I imagine that you and I are completely at odds philosophically, but we'll see if we can find some point of agreement perhaps.


    Now, there are many inventions that are based on previous inventions and to progress these older inventions have to be used.
    everything is based on something else

    Just taking them and violating the right of the owner is theft.
    agreed

    But the person who holds the right can either be bought out or he might like to see it developed and agrees with the use of his invention without compensation, as so often is the case today with electronic developments. But there is no force involved as there is with theft of any kind.
    Currently much of the world's culture is held to ransom by just this kind of thinking, by a kind of extortion. Such as orphan works which have no rightsholders cannot be accessed out of fear that someone somewhere has bought the copyright and will sue, how does this help the (long dead) creator?

    The way the term greed is used, is an outgrowth of envy, a very terrible emotion that is based in the bitterness of guys that see success by other people as something that was taken from them.
    This happens on both sides...

    I consider people who want what they have not earned or paid for as greedy, for they want want want without any effort.
    I think that's too simplistic.

  4. #329
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    And how do we protect society from individuals?
    That is what laws are for, or should be anyhow, to protect each individual from another individual who might do harm.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    This only works on the assumption that everything is owned by individuals, what about the commons? (culture etc.)
    I imagine that you and I are completely at odds philosophically, but we'll see if we can find some point of agreement perhaps.
    You got that right, that is my ultimate goal, ownership of everything by individuals. Culture is not owned per se, it is a byproduct of living in a certain way. I am against ownership of any kind by countries as an entity, I would like to see none of what is currently common but only private ownership.

    And yes, I think too that we are completely at odds in our philosophies , I am at odds with many people.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    Currently much of the world's culture is held to ransom by just this kind of thinking, by a kind of extortion. Such as orphan works which have no rightsholders cannot be accessed out of fear that someone somewhere has bought the copyright and will sue, how does this help the (long dead) creator?
    If the creator is long dead then the copyright should have died with the creator. I am all for limiting the rights till death. After that a feast for all. There is also the assumption that all copyright holders cling to their rights until their heirs have had their fill. It just is not so.

    A rational person who invented/discovered something that might save people or advance life in a positive way will often freely share. Most people are not made of stone you know
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    This happens on both sides...
    How can it be on both sides? Explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    I think that's too simplistic.
    It is not simplistic at all. It is best to boil things down to the core, and that is what this statement is. No, I do not consider this or that circumstance or need or whatever the excuse might be as a valid nuance.
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  5. #330
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    there is no difference between piracy and file sharing, they both steal
    OK I'm going to nip this in the bud right now, Rudy sorry to tell you this but you're WAY out of line here. There are plenty of people who legitimately put their OWN materials onto P2P networks or torrent sites with the intention of why the technology was invented in the first place... to distribute content THEY created and own in an effort to reduce central bandwidth costs. Revision3 (for example), a well known broadcasting network owned by the people who created Digg regularly put their OWN material onto torrent sites to reduce their own bandwidth bills as the technology grabs the file from a decentralised location so bandwidth is provided by third party sources. MANY other legitimate companies do the same. Just because the technology gets abused does NOT indicate or mean that everything on that medium is thereby criminal. If I produce software or a podcast or a video and want to put it on a torrent website so my websites bandwidth isn't leeched, I've got every right to-do so as the copyright holder and legal owner of the work. So don't you tell me that by sharing MY own materials, that makes me a criminal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    Only if the copyright is expired is the work of something in public domain. As long as there is a copyright holder there is no such thing as being in the public domain.
    Actually, you get mixed rights agreements these days which can make something of public domain value with a few restrictions applied, the creative commons license is a perfect example of this. Public domain only indicates that something is no longer owned by a central figure or group... throwing your work into open source licenses or very flexible CC licenses allows the work to be of the public domain (and ownership) with a simple agreed set of terms to maintain the continued development of the project (or the intent of the original author as respectfully agreed upon by those who use the work). It's not as "clear cut" as you would make out.

  6. #331
    King of Paralysis by Analysis bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    5,840
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You wrote...

    Definately, it is wrong and the guy is a thief but certainly Madonna's life style is not hurt in the same way that you'd be hurt.

    I wrote...
    In other words, it's OK to steal from the rich because they are rich.

    You wrote...

    I would suggest to re-read the sentence and not to change the words and not to apply to them a conclusion that can't be extracted from them. This will help to get us all understood and not to put words into someone else's mouth that (s)he didn't say.
    What words did I put in your mouth? I quoted you exactly...

    What else can your sentence mean?

    Madonna's life style is not hurt in the same way that you'd be hurt.

    So it's ok to steal from Madonna because she is white? Because she is a woman? Because she is famous? Because she likes pointy bras?

    What exactly makes stealing from Madonna any different than stealing from anyone else? Unless of course it's the fact that she is rich and thus wouldn't miss the money as much as a poor person would but you've categorically denied that that was your statement so do enlighten us with what makes it more justifiable to steal from her according to you.

  7. #332
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, I feel so old after reading this thread...

    I had no idea SP books were a hot commodity on illegal file sharing sites. It never even occurred to me

    I was there during the heady days before MP3's sharing became headline news with RIAA lawsuits and such. I had some of the original MP3 compression software (out of Germany as I recall) that I had to configure and run from a command line... Within about 8 hours I could rip a single song to MP3 on my Pentium MMX233 (or maybe it was a 586 of some sort). I knew the warez sites and ftp ratio servers but that was a long time ago and I guess I've been out of the loop for a while. Back then the idea of file sharing for me was just a bunch of geeks messing about with technology. Once I got it through my thick head that sharing IP without the right to share it was indeed a crime, I accepted it and moved on. It makes a difference to your point of view once you actually contribute to the creation of IP and then you realize that file sharing isn't all that cool when someone tries to take it.

    * I still think the record companies lost out on a marketing opportunity but that's ancient history and I could never figure out how to spin it to their advantage.

    I don't really believe the "try before you buy" argument... I think people use that in an attempt to rationalize illegal downloading. I've got about a dozen SP books on my bookshelf and about the same amount of PDF's (and now a bunch of mobi books)... I have probably downloaded twice that amount of the sample chapters so that I can try before I buy. The sample chapters do work... I download a PDF, give it a good read and about 50% - 70% of the time, I buy the book in one format or another.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  8. #333
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    ... So don't you tell me that by sharing MY own materials, that makes me a criminal.
    I'll have to go back and re-read Rudy's post but I think he was making a statement about illegal file sharing and I suppose that's a good point... There is a difference between file sharing and illegal file sharing. I use torrents as well for legitimate file sharing. Not often but sometimes.

    [EDIT] I re-read Rudy's post and Rudy is correct in the context that he posted both legally and morally. Rudy was responding to a post that was stating a difference between a) someone stealing IP for a profit and b) someone taking IP and sharing it because they think it's cool and that everyone should have it. In both cases it's illegal and wrong. I'm with Rudy on this issue.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  9. #334
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Actually, you get mixed rights agreements these days which can make something of public domain value with a few restrictions applied, the creative commons license is a perfect example of this. Public domain only indicates that something is no longer owned by a central figure or group... throwing your work into open source licenses or very flexible CC licenses allows the work to be of the public domain (and ownership) with a simple agreed set of terms to maintain the continued development of the project (or the intent of the original author as respectfully agreed upon by those who use the work). It's not as "clear cut" as you would make out.
    Yes, that is true, but it was up to the holder of the copyright in the first place to allow it to be open source. The owner determined what was to happen, and that is perfectly fine of course.
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  10. #335
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK it's wrong.

    But get this: for me pirating means freedom. Why?

    MUSIC
    First off, I live in a country where, 5 years ago, paying/ordering over the Internet was not something you could do.

    Secondly, in the same country, liberated, mind you, by a big bloody revolution, in total awesome democracy, we are facing another type of censorship. You only hear on TVs and radios same type of mind numbing negative value music or series or movies. Only commercial values are promoted towards you. It's forcing you to think, hear, eat what they want, when they want, how they want. I suspect this it's not just my country's case.

    The choise is not your's anymore. I remember being in faculty, I could go into a music store, listen TAPES, find out about new bands, artists, and finally buy-after-educate. Now you don't hear so much about REAL MUSIC, but Gaga this or some other WTF face.

    But pirated music doesn't discriminate: it's all kind and genre. And it's a better promoter than any marketing wizardry: it promotes diversity and choise.

    MOVIES
    Let's face it, doll faces, fake &CGI. So clean it could be a soap commercial. Every big box-office earns more than enough exploiting the same concepts over and over.

    If they don't offer something new, why should you pay? They steal concepts from decades ago and make big money. Maybe they dress it a little bit, so that no one could say it's a twin, and that's making it worse: they push their theft legit.

    E-BOOKS
    Very few e-books say something. I'm not that old (yet), but I remember my begining days as a programmer (on good old 286 and 386), when reference was the help of your IDE. Then you would invent all by your self, not just copy-paste code you wouldn't understand. Faculty courses and professors and colleagues, that's all you had. Plus your mind. That was education. Today still, I find that to be the case, with a few exception, and sitepoint's materials are it.


    In short, if I can't be free:
    - I don't buy music, I by music I like, but that's against capitalism, exploiting commercial
    - I don't waste time in cinema/in front of the TV, I want an adventure, but that's against capitalism, exploiting your interest
    - I don't buy books I don't need just 'cos I can paypal, I want books to open my mind, but that's against capitalism, exploiting needs

    I don't settle with what they are willing to give me, and so are many. That's pirating for you. And yes, it provokes collateral damage, but we all are already that. In today's open world, so many things are closing for you won't believe it's true. And if they also take over Internet, controling it like a network, some other thing will emerge. We need freedom, and Internet it's just that: freedom of choice, of share, of knowledge, of education, of finding and forming the right taste for you as a person.

    Is it wrong? It is as it harms good honest workers. But it's for greater good. A musician who plays for money, an actor who casts for fame, a sunday writer, they don't deserve consideration. I wish I could help those with a true vocation, those that make our life better and get hurt by the same that loves them.

  11. #336
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Crazybanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    In tha fruit cellar
    Posts
    1,379
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I know i said i wasn't going to participate more, but this is too good to leave it so easily

    I have been reading every single post carefully here now, and i see certain patterns and parallels here i would enlight a bit...

    lets start...

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I was forced to download an illegal copy
    this is so good


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    The product may be overpriced... A playstation game cost around 60 here... the game may be
    worth it (the sad thing is that sometimes the game is not that good) but... at 60 per
    game... how many do you think that you can afford?
    who says it's overpriced? how many do you need?

    i pay from 76 to 87 for Xbox games here, and i don't see it as a problem. when i buy a
    game, we have it as long as we like.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    You don't know the details and I am not going to tell you
    no need for details


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Everything is complex, and most of of the time it isn't black or white
    then there is no need to make it more complex with cloudy phrasings about how complicated it
    is.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I simply can't consider it theft in all the cases... I can't consider it a theft when you can benefit from it.
    sure, as long as no one gets hurt it's perfectly ok. ..or is it not?


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    You're going to hate me for saying this Jake but... that's youth talking. I suspect that you
    don't have a clue of what necessity means and no, not everybody can get a loan.
    what I'm reading here is 'people who has other views on theft, don't have a clue'
    I hope I'm misunderstanding this.

    to me it looks like you mean necessity gives you the power to byepass the law, and those who can't get a loan, should just take what they want for free. sorry, but this is what i am reading here. they should try to work harder.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Some of them, if they like and can afford it, will buy it. Many of them were not be potential buyers anyway
    so because it's too expensive for some people, they can just take it for free - because they would never buy it anyway ?


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I also agree that a creator has to be paid fairly for their job... but that the system is
    changing and possibly this era of residual income due to copyrights will be over as
    technology advances and everything will be in the cloud, not owned by anyone in particular
    by collectively.
    when do you predict this to happend ? I think we will be living in peace and harmony on this planet... someday.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I don't know how much a musician receives for writing music in other countries (I mean the
    one that wrote the music, not the singer or band that sings it) but in Spain, musicians are
    forced to pay their fees to the SGAE and they only receive 0,5% for copyright. If you're
    writing for someone famous, that will make you a decent living but if you're not...
    doesn't this apply to all of us? if you are working hard and do a great job, wouldn't you earn more money and thus not need to steal?


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    But the musicians themselves... they would love to be able to distribute their music freely
    through the net... because more often than not, they found that they could give concerts
    (when before they were tied to the music lables) and earn more than when their music is
    protected.
    have you been into the music business for a long time? many of my friends are musicians (i am too, but i don't try to live of it) some of them lives of it, while others don't, and I have never - never, heard any of them say that it would make them happy if their music was distributed through the internet for free. have you ever been out on a tour, traveling over 300 days a year. stressing from one place to another, away from friends, family and kids for months? guess not.

    this looks more like one of your own conclusions, that seems fair to draw because it may (in some cases) seems like some kind of a logic conclusion.

    of course there will always be some artists that may fit into that frame, as there always is.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Now, the big dilema here is that many people have your music or book, and you need to turn
    them into customers. How do you do it? I guess providing something of value that they will
    only get if they buy it (like customer support) or converting them in brand evangelist and
    your biggest fans.
    if you make a proven strategy for what you suggest here, you will be enormous rich.
    people will beg you to teach it.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    What I meant about Jake was simply that he will not know what he will do until he sees
    himself in that situation
    well, i've been in a lot of situations in my life. for a small period i lived on the street, but i didn't start to steal for that reason. it only gave me inspiration to work harder. now i have what i need, i can mostly do whatever i want almost every day in the year. without stealing or doing anything illegal.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    The system is getting obsolete
    I hear you...


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    People may pay a monthly fee to have those channels, as they do today but... you don't think
    that it would work forever, do you?
    nothing works forever, as forever is a long time. But where do you see the income stream here, if the advertising business can't advertise for any digital product because it's free for all. then here's a lot of money left on the table.

    where is your business model here? how would you finance it?


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    There are all kind of people in the world, and you seem to be determinated to put everyone on the same boat
    it seems like you have your own boat, and it may look like no one can ride along with you in it.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    What I meant is that you treat everything a black or white, and there are not only grey
    areas but some in full color too.
    that's like saying: i bet all the sheeps are not white.
    it's like putting on a mask in front of your friends, and then tell them it isn't you behind that mask.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    That's easy in the case of Photoshop! When you can pay it but you can still pay the rent and
    the electricity and maybe, just maybe, even get out one day with your friends. At 800 the
    license, that's not the case. Consider that the average salary here is 1200... and many,
    many people earn less than that...
    if you are in the need for professional tools, you have to pay for it. now, if you are an amateure - you go for a cheaper tool designed for the amateure you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    In the case of luxuries (music, DVDs, etc) it also depens on how much you have to spend
    (which, as you may guess, it is not much) and your circumstances (you may make good money
    but have people depending on you, this is especially true in this time of crisis but for
    some of us is always true ) but if I would really enjoy the movie or music and use it more
    than once. 20 for a music CD or a DVD (don't want to know what Blue-Ray cost) is really
    high if it turns out that I only like one song or I think that the movie is just OK. It will
    end up at the bottom of the drawer and I would consider that wasted money.
    you would consider it a waste of money? I have more than 1k of legally bought dvd's, and of course many of them is only seen once, but does that give me the right to get my money back, or get new ones for free?
    because if i had knew the movie wasn't that good, i probably wouldn't buy it, and therefore
    not being a customer, which would not result in any loss of money.

    this is just funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    In the case of books, again that's even harder. If you're using books to learn new skills
    (like SQL), the problem is that you need to read 1000 books before you get a real good one.
    You will be able to buy one or two... but you will not be able to afford the 5-6 books that
    you need to find all the information you need.
    so just because you didn't feel you learned enough, you can just grab other ones for free?
    or because you think you wouldn't learn everything about a field from a book, you should just grab what you need, and never look back?

    that's one heck of a philosophy...

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I never questioned the owners' right to do whatevery they want with what they create, I
    simply stated that I don't think that you can't consider downloading as theft in all cases
    furthermore when you don't really know how much you lost/won.
    Are your only measurement in this world, money? money is right, money is wrong - money is da
    man?


    you talk about personal opinions for your statement and mentality, you also mentions
    that it's obvious to you. but what i hear you say is 'i have made me this thoughts, and to me it
    is obvious that it's the right thing. and because it feels right to me, it have to be right
    for the rest of the world too. the problem is just that, they can't see it or understand it like me'

    i don't know, i'm probably missing a point here. but this is what i hear...

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Nothing is taken away from the owner just the possibility of revenue. This is not like
    taking something that you own and you're left without. You never had that revenue in the
    first place. And a possibility is just that, a possibility.
    again your only measurement is money. money doesn't replace the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    You may still gain something as it is true that a few of those downloaders will turn into
    customers. This doesn't happen with a true, real theft.
    so theft on the internet is not true real theft, as long as there may be some benefits? that's hmm, that's interesting...

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    It is not the same in all cases... I don't think that it is the same case when someone has
    loads of money to spare that when someone has little options or, from the 3-4 books he may
    need, he has only money to buy 1.
    it is the money, isn't it? if money means so much for you, it will always stand in your way.
    what you long so much for, and wants so high - will always be your enemy. it's called a paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Don't take this as a critic because it is not but... It also amazes me that such a creative people wants to keep the old system but they are not creative enough to turn downloading into an opportunity although I suspect that, again, this is partially due to the big companies that don't want them to take control because they will be the big losers.
    no offence taken

    it may also amaze you that some people makes a decent living without the need to grab illegal things for free.

    what amazes me is that you seem so smart in your business model, but still you need to download illegal tools to keep it going. does this mean that you aren't creative enough to turn downloads into an opportunity?

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Companies that excuse their loss of revenue to the piracy... but I wonder in how many
    instances a buyer would have decided that the product was not worth enough before he was
    forced to buy it. If he could had had the opportunity of reading the book or listenting to
    the whole album or use the product in full with no restrictions and decide if it was worth
    the money or not (no 30 days is not enough for Photoshop and maybe 90 is not enough
    either... you need to work too and then take care of your family... it takes ages to really
    learn to use it and know what it does with a minimum of detail
    I don't think Photoshop is the first an amateure should jump at, do you? if you have been working with photos in other software, photoshop will make more sense to you. it is not a tool for every amateure or wannabe.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    How many times have you bought a book because someone told you "it is great" and then you
    read it and think "what a wate of money?"
    never. money is not everything, no matter how hard you want to believe it. I have many boxes of books in the basement, and i hope i can build a small library in my house to place them in.
    of course every book isn't great, but you can't eat the cake and save it at the same time. can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    1.- The potographer did earned his salary on only 2-3 hours and, as you said, benefited with
    a referral. Not too bad for a day.
    so that is 'not too bad for a day' for you, so it has to be not that bad for a day for him too?

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    2.- Do you think that, since he does good money and get referrals from time to time which is
    the bulk of his salary, he's going to care about if the couple make their own copies or not?
    He may even be happy because he had less work to do!
    you have the opinion that he does good money, to me it also looks like you make some assumptions based on his income. there are other qualifications in life than money.
    i hope you discover it one day

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Things are not black and white, there are lots of shades in between and not only gray
    i feel these words are getting boring to hear by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    And aren't there many fine painters that charge to do exact copies and reproductions of
    classic paitings (Velaquez, Michael Angelo, Monet, Manet, etc)?

    these are dead a long time ago (more than 70yrs). Datura, as you may know - is still kicking.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Again, things are not black and white
    zzzZZZ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Datura
    Wow molona. What else can I say?
    Mine is mine and yours is yours. Can you not understand that?
    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Maybe I didn't explain myself very well...
    I think you did...
    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    What I don't agree with is that you call thief to whoever makes a copy without your
    permission. Not all cases are the same, not all imply loss of profit, not all imply loss of
    business and sometimes it may even help you grow your reputation.
    if i read you right, this means that in some cases people can take the law into their own hands and decide what is right and wrong. As long as no money is lost in the process, and there are some benefits to be made.

    Quote Originally Posted by php_daemon
    Yes it is. You seem to follow a principle that it's not wrong as long as the outcome is
    good.
    this is exactly what I'm sitting here with after reading all your posts Molona.

    every time you feel you have to explain yourself you blame 'the big labels' rich people, people who in your eyes probably earn enough money, necessity or you comes with some new twist on it

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    I am biting my tongue...
    don't, I think most of us got it by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    it is wrong and the guy is a thief but certainly Madonna's life style is not hurt in the same way that you'd be hurt.
    no one puts words in anyones mouth here, but re-read the sentence and tell me that you are not saying that it is wrong to steal from rich people, but it is better than stealing from an ordinary guy.
    because that's what I'm reading. what else can it means? you tell me

    Quote Originally Posted by php_daemon
    No no, I think my example was good enough to bring my point.
    I think it was an exelent example, because that is what i too, really reads from all her posts. but i also sense some kind of money issue... rich vs poor...

    patterns and parallels seems to be that: things are right, even if they are wrong - as long as the outcome is good. and it is better to steal from rich people or companies, than from the ordinary guy. money is everything that matters.

    I said it before, people can download whatever they want, but they should stop pretending that illegal downloads is a right thing to do.
    Who's to doom when the judge himself is dragged before the bar


  12. #337
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by awasson View Post
    Rudy was responding to a post that was stating a difference between a) someone stealing IP for a profit and b) someone taking IP and sharing it because they think it's cool and that everyone should have it. In both cases it's illegal and wrong. I'm with Rudy on this issue.
    OK, In that context I retract what i said, it was just the way he put it forward (stating bluntly about file sharing) that made me think he was (as many people do) trying to legitimize the legal usage of those protocols. I certainly wouldn't want people thinking torrent / P2P = always illegal always bad.

  13. #338
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yup, there's a huge difference between file sharing and illegal file sharing but I'll bet most people (and many lawmakers) don't know the difference
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  14. #339
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What is everyone's view on downloading TV shows? For example, every Thursday, The Office is on at night which I am unavailable to catch the live air of the show. What is so bad with me later downloading the show to watch it because I missed it?

  15. #340
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,341
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Rudy sorry to tell you this but you're WAY out of line here.
    WAY out of line? i don't think so at all, and ~you're~ out of line for reacting so negatively

    you make a good point about an author voluntarily distributing his own work on file sharing networks

    but i'm guessing that this would likely be only a small minority of files "shared"

    my comments were more in the context of the initial post by shayne in this thread, which started the ball rolling by talking about sitepoint books on file sharing systems

    that's the type of file sharing that's wrong
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  16. #341
    SitePoint Member mugloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    That is what laws are for, or should be anyhow, to protect each individual from another individual who might do harm.
    No, I said society, not individuals How do we protect society from individuals?


    You got that right, that is my ultimate goal, ownership of everything by individuals. Culture is not owned per se, it is a byproduct of living in a certain way. I am against ownership of any kind by countries as an entity, I would like to see none of what is currently common but only private ownership.
    Or individual ownership is a byproduct of our culture. You say potato...


    If the creator is long dead then the copyright should have died with the creator. I am all for limiting the rights till death. After that a feast for all. There is also the assumption that all copyright holders cling to their rights until their heirs have had their fill. It just is not so.
    Agreed, i'd still like it to be less than life-length, but let's not quibble.


    A rational person who invented/discovered something that might save people or advance life in a positive way will often freely share. Most people are not made of stone you know
    Just last week some Indian scientists made the news because their mapping of a cancer genome was to be made freely available rather than locked down by patents, the shocking part is that this was newsworthy. The biotech industry is a masterclass in people being made of stone.

    "A rational person"
    Your rational person described here seems out of step with your private ownership argument above. What you're describing is a socially responsible person who recognises that sometimes the need of the individual can be waived (by them) when the product has great value to society. When the social utility of your creation exceeds a certain threshold ("advances life in a positive way") then it may (at the rightsholder's discretion) be freely shared.

    Surely in the model of private ownership the rational thing to do would be to charge for your product regardless of its social utility. In fact the greater the social utility then the greater the likelihood that it will sell, so put up the price. The only reason I can see for not doing that, is if you accept that there is a common good, and once you accept that there is a common good then you have the problem of deciding what increases the common good, and thus there must be some things that are in the commons.

    What I think you want (apologies for putting words in your mouth) is the power to be charitable. Individuals own stuff, and individuals decide when and how they let others have "their" stuff, and on what terms. I instinctively have issues with this but can't put my finger on them (something to do with monopolies), maybe it's workable, I'm too tired to think about it


    To go back to file-sharing etc. I agree that most people are not made out of stone, and this is why I believe that people pay for things that they can get for free if they think it has value. My take is that many more people download stuff for free than pay for it (by an order of magnitude I imagine, I have no numbers for this). And that every person grabs a free copy is a potential customer, someone who will potentially pay later. By distributing more copies you make more fans, by having more fans you get more sales. Sure there will be freeloaders in their millions, but they most likely wouldn't have bought the book anyways and with digital copies you're not losing anything when they download. if some of them convert to fans that's a net gain.

    Before you tear that idea to shreds, here's my point, I know this is a leap of faith, but I think it can work. We can argue rationally all day long but from what I've seen so far on this thread it appears that everyone has their entrenched position, there are no reliable statistics on this subject so all we can do is go with our gut, and my gut instinct is that people will support what they like and want to see more of.

    The real beauty of the digital/infinite-goods angle is that it doesn't matter if there are freeloaders and bad actors, they're freeloading an infinite good, no damage done. If the file-sharing issue was a question of tangible/finite goods then every freeloader would be a problem of course. But with infinite goods you have to concentrate on the good actors, give them a reason to buy, give them a good product that they want and they will pay (that's my point of faith), and don't focus on the bad actors who download and give nothing back because they don't have an effect.

  17. #342
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I came across this while searching tonight:
    I have been informed that, when circulating libraries were first opened, the booksellers were much alarmed; and their rapid increase added to their fears, and led them to think that the sale of books would be much diminished by such libraries. But experience has proved that the sale of books, so far from being diminished by them, has been greatly promoted; as from these repositories many thousand families have been cheaply supplied with books, by which the taste of reading has become more general, and thousand of books are purchased each year by such as have first borrowed them at those libraries, and after reading, approving of them, have become purchasers.
    It's from a book published in 1793. Sounds all too familiar to me.

  18. #343
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    there is no difference between piracy and file sharing, they both steal
    File sharing (p2p) is a group of technologies, piracy is an action. There is clearly a difference.

    You statement is like saying that there is no difference between porn and the web because they both have images of naked people.

    Also millions of World of Warcraft players regularly using p2p to get their patches wouldn't like being called a pirate.

  19. #344
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,341
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sneak4919 View Post
    File sharing (p2p) is a group of technologies, piracy is an action. There is clearly a difference.
    i conceded this point already

    what you should do is have a look at the post which prompted me to make that statement about stealing -- http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...&postcount=293
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  20. #345
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    i conceded this point already
    I'm curious to know whether you were already aware of the difference, or had to concede it above due to new information/ways of thinking/whatever coming to light.

  21. #346
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,341
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    yes

    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  22. #347
    ✯✯✯ silver trophybronze trophy php_daemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,284
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    Surely in the model of private ownership the rational thing to do would be to charge for your product regardless of its social utility.
    It is a rational thing to do to charge for your product regardless of its social utility if you find no value in giving it away for free.

    But it is also a rational thing to give it away if you see value in that.

    <rant>
    What I find funny is that some people seem to "know better" to decide what a person in such case should do. It's not their damn business.

    What I also find funny is that these same people portray their own values in doing so, and those values are very contrary to what they preach. They preach "greater good" and "higher that money values" while they are, in fact, obsessed with money for they see it as the sole measure of everything. Not that being obsessed with money is necessarily a bad thing, but envy and hypocrisy is.

    BTW, the term "greater good" is a paradox. It usually implies a sacrifice and something bad happening (i.e. a person losing something). How do you build a good on a bad? Destroy one to build another. It's just a bad try to rationalize and justify destruction.
    </rant>

    BTW, the rant is not directed to anyone in particular.
    Saul

  23. #348
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    No, I said society, not individuals How do we protect society from individuals?
    Society is a bunch of individuals, is it not? Therefore if you protect the individual you protect all people automatically.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    Or individual ownership is a byproduct of our culture. You say potato...
    What?
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    Agreed, i'd still like it to be less than life-length, but let's not quibble.
    Just last week some Indian scientists made the news because their mapping of a cancer genome was to be made freely available rather than locked down by patents, the shocking part is that this was newsworthy. The biotech industry is a masterclass in people being made of stone.

    "A rational person"
    Your rational person described here seems out of step with your private ownership argument above. What you're describing is a socially responsible person who recognises that sometimes the need of the individual can be waived (by them) when the product has great value to society. When the social utility of your creation exceeds a certain threshold ("advances life in a positive way") then it may (at the rightsholder's discretion) be freely shared.
    "Socially responsible person" right out of the little red book. I am not a collectivist, so those arguments you bring are all based in altruism. I am not an altruist, I support the right of the individual, and if that person who invents something and wants to sit on it, it is his right to do so. I would not, but that would be my decision alone and not a decision by a mob.

    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    Surely in the model of private ownership the rational thing to do would be to charge for your product regardless of its social utility. In fact the greater the social utility then the greater the likelihood that it will sell, so put up the price. The only reason I can see for not doing that, is if you accept that there is a common good, and once you accept that there is a common good then you have the problem of deciding what increases the common good, and thus there must be some things that are in the commons.
    What is it with all the social thing you are talking about? I have no obligation nor does any other person to serve what you call the greater good. I do not appreciate to be held as a slave by the ones who claim the good of all. The least productive people of all seem to make this claim most.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    What I think you want (apologies for putting words in your mouth) is the power to be charitable. Individuals own stuff, and individuals decide when and how they let others have "their" stuff, and on what terms. I instinctively have issues with this but can't put my finger on them (something to do with monopolies), maybe it's workable, I'm too tired to think about it
    Quite an assumption there. I abhor any person who seeks power of any kind, because that means that the power seeker is dependent on the ones that give him power. It also means that he wants to control people. Being charitable should have nothing to do with power, it should be goodwill towards the people who benefit from the charity. The giver should be charitable because he is seeing a need that was not self inflicted.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    To go back to file-sharing etc. I agree that most people are not made out of stone, and this is why I believe that people pay for things that they can get for free if they think it has value. My take is that many more people download stuff for free than pay for it (by an order of magnitude I imagine, I have no numbers for this). And that every person grabs a free copy is a potential customer, someone who will potentially pay later. By distributing more copies you make more fans, by having more fans you get more sales. Sure there will be freeloaders in their millions, but they most likely wouldn't have bought the book anyways and with digital copies you're not losing anything when they download. if some of them convert to fans that's a net gain.

    Before you tear that idea to shreds, here's my point, I know this is a leap of faith, but I think it can work. We can argue rationally all day long but from what I've seen so far on this thread it appears that everyone has their entrenched position, there are no reliable statistics on this subject so all we can do is go with our gut, and my gut instinct is that people will support what they like and want to see more of.
    Nothing wrong to steer production by consumers, but taking is still wrong, even if it results in down the road purchases. The right thing is to have independent critics reviewing the products and that is the guide for people to purchase or not. Boycott is the solution to all commerce. If you do not like a product then do not buy from the producer. Simple as that. Yes, people would have to do a little more research and put an effort into what they buy, but that responsibility of making choices based in research should be the norm.

    I do not have instincts, I am a human Only animals have instincts.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    The real beauty of the digital/infinite-goods angle is that it doesn't matter if there are freeloaders and bad actors, they're freeloading an infinite good, no damage done. If the file-sharing issue was a question of tangible/finite goods then every freeloader would be a problem of course. But with infinite goods you have to concentrate on the good actors, give them a reason to buy, give them a good product that they want and they will pay (that's my point of faith), and don't focus on the bad actors who download and give nothing back because they don't have an effect.
    There is moral damage done to the takers at a minimum. Have you seen the convoluted excuses in this thread alone? Does that not speak of awareness of guilt?
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  24. #349
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by php_daemon View Post
    What I find funny is that some people seem to "know better" to decide what a person in such case should do. It's not their damn business.
    Indeed.
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  25. #350
    SitePoint Member mugloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is fun but it's hard to keep on subject, so I'm going to choose my points of argument a bit more carefully, try to focus more. Datura, we're so out of whack that it's interesting just to talk to you about this, let's see how it plays out over a few more posts.


    What?
    I said "Or individual ownership is a byproduct of our culture. You say potato... "

    You don't have to go very far back in human history to find societies with much much lower levels of individual ownership, and much greater levels of collective ownership. Individual ownership of goods as we currently see it is a modern development and a cultural norm, not a universal one.


    "Socially responsible person" right out of the little red book. I am not a collectivist, so those arguments you bring are all based in altruism. I am not an altruist, I support the right of the individual, and if that person who invents something and wants to sit on it, it is his right to do so. I would not, but that would be my decision alone and not a decision by a mob.
    And if you do not sit on it, you give it away and gain nothing, surely that is the definition of altruism, helping others with no gain for yourself. For example, all those tutorials you've put on sitepoint, are they not altruistic? you have no direct gain from them (as far as I can see) but others benefit.

    What is it with all the social thing you are talking about? I have no obligation nor does any other person to serve what you call the greater good. I do not appreciate to be held as a slave by the ones who claim the good of all. The least productive people of all seem to make this claim most.
    I never mentioned "the greater good", I talked about the "common good", you've read a value statement into that.

    Quite an assumption there.
    apologies, I don't know you, so of course anything I say is curious speculation. All I meant is that I would call that "charity".

    I abhor any person who seeks power of any kind, because that means that the power seeker is dependent on the ones that give him power. It also means that he wants to control people. Being charitable should have nothing to do with power, it should be goodwill towards the people who benefit from the charity. The giver should be charitable because he is seeing a need that was not self inflicted.
    Too often in this discussion we are frustrated by a lack of common ground and agreed terms: I mean power in a very boring way, just the standard give and take of power in any human interaction. Charity is always about power, whenever you have a choice about anything then you have power to do, or to not do, that's all I meant.
    We are all in our daily lives constantly dependant on everyone else around us.

    Nothing wrong to steer production by consumers, but taking is still wrong, even if it results in down the road purchases. The right thing is to have independent critics reviewing the products and that is the guide for people to purchase or not. Boycott is the solution to all commerce. If you do not like a product then do not buy from the producer. Simple as that. Yes, people would have to do a little more research and put an effort into what they buy, but that responsibility of making choices based in research should be the norm.
    We disagree on fundamental points here, let's leave that one.

    I do not have instincts, I am a human Only animals have instincts.
    Now that's just wrong, this must be a terminology issue

    There is moral damage done to the takers at a minimum.
    Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •