America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 43,095 comments
  • 2,490,321 views
Legislating from the ISP? Maybe not, circumventing the judicial system? Yeah I know I'm a crazed Xenophobic Right wing Patriot but surely more then just me dislikes this? (and no I'm not a pirate Aar!)


U.S. Internet providers to act against online pirates

Reuters
Consumers who illegally download copyrighted films, music or television shows might see their Internet speed slowed or access restricted under an industry anti-piracy effort announced on Thursday...........................................snip

...........................The Obama administration welcomed the industry effort.

"We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy," Victoria Espinel, the U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator, wrote on the White House blog.

The administration expects the organization that implements the program to consult with advocacy groups "to assure that its practices are fully consistent with the democratic values that have helped the Internet to flourish," she added.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-internet-piracy-idUSTRE7667FL20110708
 
This is probably good. I'd much rather the ISP took steps in this direction than that the government did. The ISP will be lenient, give warnings, perhaps not even stop certain kinds of downloads. The government would be a very heavy hammer. This is good, and from some point of view inevitable, move.
 
Yeah, I don't see the issue here. It's like security cameras in Walmart as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather my ISP be telling me I'm crossing the line than the government. Namely because my ISP likely won't put me in jail for crossing the line once.
 
Internet throttling sucks. Time Warner does it to me. One second I'm streaming at a high-speed and then the whole thing just slows down to a crawl. If I'm on PSN and my laptop at the same time they dial me back. It's very frustrating. They aren't doing it to "illegal files" - if they know an act to be illegal they could just point a user out. What they do is see a user that's using a high amount of bandwidth and throttle them back.
 
I like how Qwest/Centurylink is never mentioned in these things(unless I'm missing something), makes me much more likely to stick with them knowing they don't constantly monitor everyone(Not that I have any real good alternatives where I live).

Saying that, I have no problem with private companies doing it.
 
From my understanding (hearing from friends with the service) Verizon FiOS is supposed to be outstanding. They never throttle and the connection speeds are phenomenal. It's unfortunate that it isn't available in my area... :indiff: Stuck with TWC and their little hands on the spigot valve...
 
Villain
From my understanding (hearing from friends with the service) Verizon FiOS is supposed to be outstanding. They never throttle and the connection speeds are phenomenal. It's unfortunate that it isn't available in my area... :indiff: Stuck with TWC and their little hands on the spigot valve...
Click to expand...

Would love FiOS, but like you it's not available where I am, it's either Qwest(Soon to be CenturyLink as they told me 8 times last time I called them) or Comcast(or whatever they call themselves to hide that they are Comcast) and I have only had bad experiences with Comcast plus they cost way more.

Really wish the U.S. had a better internet structure, seems like we moved quickly from dial-up to Broadband than just kind of crawled slowly since than making very little progress compared to other countries.:grumpy:
 
Danoff
This is probably good. I'd much rather the ISP took steps in this direction than that the government did. The ISP will be lenient, give warnings, perhaps not even stop certain kinds of downloads. The government would be a very heavy hammer. This is good, and from some point of view inevitable, move.
Click to expand...
I would actually expect the ISPs to be able to actually do something in this situation, while the government would only be able to threaten punishment and throw people in jail on rare occasions when they can't find a way around the system.

Either way, I wouldn't doubt this "effort" is politically motivated. But then again, ISPs are businesses, and businesses get money from customers, and it just so happens that quite a large portion of their customers do or have downloaded illegal material.

EDIT: For the record, I still think copyright laws are way out of line, and the idea that a downloaded movie or song is copyright infringement is bogus. Unless a music producer made every single possible digital variation of a particular song and copyrighted every single one of them, there is no objective way to show that their original recording is in any way related to my 320 bitrate version. Because literally, my lower bitrate version is not the same thing. Technically, it's not even an intact copy of the song because bits here and there are missing, literally.

Having a copyright on a modified digital version of an original recording, which is not objectively the same despite sounding quite similar, is no more legitimate than having a copyright over a version sung by an impersonator who sounds strikingly similar to the original artist. Therefore, I have just concluded that my downloading of a modified video, say, in matroska format, or my downloading of a modified song in whatever audio format, is not stealing in any sense of the word, because my copies are literally different things than the original version.

It would be copyright infringement if I somehow stole or obtained a precise copy of the original directly from the source. But the way copyrights are conducted right now is bogus, bogus, bogus, and I absolutely refuse to conform.
 
Last edited:
My old ISP, Eircom, had a sort of "3 strikes" policy when it came to illegal downloads. They would warn you for the first month, slow down your broadband for the second month, and completely cut you off if you continued to download for the third month. I moved from them because their broadband package was way too small for my needs.
 
Keef
Unless a music producer made every single possible digital variation of a particular song and copyrighted every single one of them, there is no objective way to show that their original recording is in any way related to my 320 bitrate version. Because literally, my lower bitrate version is not the same thing. Technically, it's not even an intact copy of the song because bits here and there are missing, literally.

Having a copyright on a modified digital version of an original recording, which is not objectively the same despite sounding quite similar, is no more legitimate than having a copyright over a version sung by an impersonator who sounds strikingly similar to the original artist. Therefore, I have just concluded that my downloading of a modified video, say, in matroska format, or my downloading of a modified song in whatever audio format, is not stealing in any sense of the word, because my copies are literally different things than the original version.

It would be copyright infringement if I somehow stole or obtained a precise copy of the original directly from the source. But the way copyrights are conducted right now is bogus, bogus, bogus, and I absolutely refuse to conform.
Click to expand...

There are holes in that argument you could drive a truck through. What you're saying is no different than taking a book or some such and reprinting it with a different font, on a slightly different shade of paper. It's still a copyvio. Not to mention the copyright on the lyrics themselves. Etc.
 
Keef
But the way copyrights are conducted right now is bogus, bogus, bogus, and I absolutely refuse to conform.
Click to expand...
I've taken a more peaceful, and less self-justification route to deal with this stuff.

First off I will always buy stuff I really do like. It is why I have two copies of the complete season of Firefly, one in DVD and one in Blu-ray. Stuff I am unsure on I just watch with Netflix and then rate. I only have two ratings there though, 5 stars or no stars (or is one star the lowest?). If your product isn't good enough to make me want to purchase it then I won't give it a proper review and I will never see it again.

Once upon a time I would even purchase semi-good stuff but as time goes on and prices become relatively more expensive its come down to either a definite buy or never watching it again.
 
Last edited:
Keef
EDIT: For the record, I still think copyright laws are way out of line, and the idea that a downloaded movie or song is copyright infringement is bogus.
Click to expand...

The first part of this sentence I agree with, the 2nd part I do not. The reason people download this stuff is because it's valuable to them - and that value was created by someone else. Copyright isn't about physical ownership of a particular instantiation of something, it's about ownership of intellectual property. It's the content that they own - and that content is being stolen by people who value it but do not want to pay the person that created it. The bits are valueless, it's their organization that has value.

Copyright law is way out of line though, and has ballooned (mostly because of Disney) to something absolutely absurd and stifling. I'd be all for reforming it.

I don't steal movies or songs anymore. I used to illegally download music (like 10 years ago), but it's so easy and inexpensive to comply with the law these days... I think the point was made back in the day with the advent of MP3s, and now the system is set up well for those who want to comply.

I'll tell you where the system is not set up well for those who want to comply - porn. The porn industry would like for the rampant theft of their property to stop as well, but I think before they can hope for that they have to improve their business model.
 
BobK
There are holes in that argument you could drive a truck through. What you're saying is no different than taking a book or some such and reprinting it with a different font, on a slightly different shade of paper. It's still a copyvio. Not to mention the copyright on the lyrics themselves. Etc.
Click to expand...
It's possible for another person who has never encountered a particular material, be it a song, artwork, or book, to come up with something nearly the same on their own. In my eyes, it's impossible for that to be considered copyright infringement simply because the second person didn't know the original material even existed.

Then there's the fact that you can't copyright ideas. Ideas occur in nature, and unless you make them your own you have to rights to them. I've argued to Danoff that one way to make an idea your own is to put it into physical form, via some sort of technical specification. There, now you have rights to your original material, though still not to your idea. If anybody in the world wants to make copies of it, they must somehow attain that original material. That's where the permission comes in.

A book's original copyrighted form is what the author has rights to. For it to be published or reprinted, the publisher or printer must gain access to the original material. But after that it's fair game because the copyright only applies to the original material.

Same applies to artwork. Somebody wants to make a copy of your oil painting or photograph? They have to seek you for access to your original material. After that, it's fair game.

I don't know what a "technical specification" consists of when it comes to songwriting. All I know is that they bitch when some kid sings their stuff in a talent show. That's bogus. It is impossible to copyright the act of hearing a sound and reproducing it with one's voice. If that kid somehow gained access to the original material, literally stole it, and used it without permission, then that would be copyright infringement.

This can work with digital copies too. The owner of original material can do whatever they want with their stuff, as long as they make sure to copyright each new version of it. They put it in a digital form? There you go, now you have another original version created by the original person. Copyright it. Now you have rights to that particular version. And luckily for you, digital files do indeed have technical specifications about them. In order for more digital copies to be made, somebody must gain access to that original digital copy.

Above all, the act of stealing somebody else's original work shouldn't even be considered copyright infringement until the robber tries to claim it as their own, or tries to make money off it. Until then, it's simply stealing.

FoolKiller
I've taken a more peaceful, and less self-justification route to deal with this stuff.

First off I will always buy stuff I really do like. It is why I have two copies of the complete season of Firefly, one in DVD and one in Blu-ray. Stuff I am unsure on I just watch with Netflix and then rate. I only have two ratings there though, 5 stars or no stars (or is one star the lowest?). If your product isn't good enough to make me want to purchase it then I won't give it a proper review and I will never see it again.

Once upon a time I would even purchase semi-good stuff but as time goes on and prices become relatively more expensive its come down to either a definite buy or never watching it again.
Click to expand...
I've always found it exceedingly difficult to convince myself to buy a product that isn't interactive and satisfying for an extended period of time. Music and movies come to mind. Video games? I've bought numerous video games in the past. Speaking of which, I've purchased four PS3 games - one of them used - since I got the system in 2007. I'm of the opinion that the games are dreadfully expensive. That's why I game on my computer now. I had attempted to download games in the past, though that was a hit-or-miss affair. As I tried to find newer games for free, it became nearly impossible. Then I discovered Steam and was delighted to see that the same games for computer are often half the price of a console version, and I jumped on it. Since then I've bought numerous computer games, especially during fantastic sales where the $15 entrance fee easily covers years of mods and multiplayer action.

$15 for a CD? Depends on what it is. Dark Side of the Moon is worth it and then some.

I guess the thing with some types of digital media is the form that it comes in. When you pay money for a car, you get, well, a car. When I pay $30 for a Bluray movie, I get a small plastic disc. It makes a movie when I stick it in the slot, sure, but I mean come on. Must I stand here at the shelf and consider all the time and effort all those hard working people put into making this small plastic disc? I'd buy it if it had air conditioning - it's hot outside.

I like your idea of Netflix, and I've long wanted to be a member because I think it sounds like a great idea. The interactivity and organization and personalization of the service is worth the subscription price. But meh, I don't want to pay dues for a service that I may not use for months at a time with a busy school shedule.

Danoff
The first part of this sentence I agree with, the 2nd part I do not. The reason people download this stuff is because it's valuable to them - and that value was created by someone else. Copyright isn't about physical ownership of a particular instantiation of something, it's about ownership of intellectual property. It's the content that they own - and that content is being stolen by people who value it but do not want to pay the person that created it. The bits are valueless, it's their organization that has value.
Click to expand...
This is why I believe a copyright is about a particular instantiation. The original. Because in order to make a copy, others must have access to the original.

But somebody can make something strikingly similar, even without prior knowledge of the original's existence. How is that copyright infringement, if nothing was ever copied?

You say bits are valueless and it's the organization that has value. I agree entirely, and that's why I brought up the example. When I burn a song from a CD to my computer, it objectively becomes something different. I can make a pure copy, but if I don't then, well, I don't have a pure copy. The organization of the digital material is quite different, not only because of the different format, but also because the compression literally took bits and pieces out of the original version. It's objectively a different thing now, though it sounds similar.

That is why an artist must copyright each individual version of their original that they come up with, because those versions (a digital version for example) is objectively different than their original version. If I took an original version (supposedly this CD sitting on my desk) and made an objectively different version of it, that is no more copyright infringement than the little fat kid singing Lady Gaga at his 5th grade talent show, who heard an original version of it and then made his own objectively different version.

Copyright law is way out of line though, and has ballooned (mostly because of Disney) to something absolutely absurd and stifling. I'd be all for reforming it.
Click to expand...
That reform should include the same things I'm saying about original versions.

I don't steal movies or songs anymore. I used to illegally download music (like 10 years ago), but it's so easy and inexpensive to comply with the law these days... I think the point was made back in the day with the advent of MP3s, and now the system is set up well for those who want to comply.

I'll tell you where the system is not set up well for those who want to comply - porn. The porn industry would like for the rampant theft of their property to stop as well, but I think before they can hope for that they have to improve their business model.
Click to expand...
At least we can all agree that, even in a pristine free-market society, black markets will still exist. They always do.
 
Keef
But somebody can make something strikingly similar, even without prior knowledge of the original's existence. How is that copyright infringement, if nothing was ever copied?
Click to expand...

It's not in principle. In practice that's very difficult to set up law around. When it comes to intellectual property I'm all for the theoretical existence of independent inventors both having a legitimate claim.

Keef
You say bits are valueless and it's the organization that has value. I agree entirely, and that's why I brought up the example. When I burn a song from a CD to my computer, it objectively becomes something different. I can make a pure copy, but if I don't then, well, I don't have a pure copy. The organization of the digital material is quite different, not only because of the different format, but also because the compression literally took bits and pieces out of the original version. It's objectively a different thing now, though it sounds similar.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, it's similar enough that it has value that exists because of the original artist. The bottom line is that your copy is a good enough representation (which includes no new intellectual component btw), that you're gaining the value of the product without paying the person who labored to create it.

Keef
That is why an artist must copyright each individual version of their original that they come up with, because those versions (a digital version for example) is objectively different than their original version.
Click to expand...

Not in any way that remotely degrades the value or changes what was created into some other artistic form. A lossy copy is still a valuable product precisely because of the original artist's labor.
 
Danoff
Doesn't matter, it's similar enough that it has value that exists because of the original artist. The bottom line is that your copy is a good enough representation (which includes no new intellectual component btw), that you're gaining the value of the product without paying the person who labored to create it.
Click to expand...
It's my opinion that all these "reasonable person" clauses in our laws have all the degradation of the entire system as a whole. Because in today's society, any reasonable person is perfectly fine with applying law in one situation but not another - any reasonable person today is perfectly fine with jailing Casey Anthony despite the lack of evidence to prove her guilt.

Reasonable person clauses are pointless because society's idea of reasonable changes constantly. I wish things could either be one way or another way, and it be that simple.



Not in any way that remotely degrades the value or changes what was created into some other artistic form. A lossy copy is still a valuable product precisely because of the original artist's labor.
Click to expand...
Is it though? At what threshold of lossiness does a copy become undesirable? There is a quality threshold below which I can't be bothered with, though that limit seems different to many people I know.
 
Keef
It's my opinion that all these "reasonable person" clauses in our laws have all the degradation of the entire system as a whole. Because in today's society, any reasonable person is perfectly fine with applying law in one situation but not another - any reasonable person today is perfectly fine with jailing Casey Anthony despite the lack of evidence to prove her guilt.

Reasonable person clauses are pointless because society's idea of reasonable changes constantly. I wish things could either be one way or another way, and it be that simple.




Is it though? At what threshold of lossiness does a copy become undesirable? There is a quality threshold below which I can't be bothered with, though that limit seems different to many people I know.
Click to expand...

Boils down to one thing and one thing only - why do you value the copy?
 
Keef
A book's original copyrighted form is what the author has rights to. For it to be published or reprinted, the publisher or printer must gain access to the original material. But after that it's fair game because the copyright only applies to the original material.
Click to expand...
So, if I go to the library and take a published book to the copier and copy every single page, take the copies home, bind them up with some pretty artwork and place them on my shelf I have taken nothing from the author or the publishers?

Are you also saying that publishers have no form of copyright to the mass published version?

Same applies to artwork. Somebody wants to make a copy of your oil painting or photograph? They have to seek you for access to your original material. After that, it's fair game.
Click to expand...
Same situation as above. I make a copy of a print, frame it, and hang it on my wall. I hurt no one?


Here is a more novel idea to consider: Instead of taking a copy of an official copy recognize the original artists work by legally obtaining an official copy.

See, even if you feel you have some sort of legal or moral justification in copying music you begin to fail the market communication process. Money is a means of communication. Money says what the value of a product is. Money tells a producer how accessible supplies are by fluctuating with supply and demand. Money tells a customer what the physical value of a product is plus what the producer feels their effort is worth. Money tells the producer how consumers react to their product and their self-valued production effort.

When you buy a form of art, be it music, film, painting, literature, etc. your dollars send two messages. 1) A message to the publisher as to what you believe the physical value to be. 2) A message to the artist that you find value in their creation.

Now imagine if Led Zeppelin had released their debut album and digital copying was possible the way it is today. Instead of receiving 50,000 pre-orders, hitting Billboard's Top 10 after two weeks, and staying there for 73 weeks it would have only sold a few thousand, but everyone had a copy. No matter how many people thought they loved it the market communication process would have sent a direct message to Atlantic Records and Jimmy Page that this experiment was a failure. That would have been their only album, Puff Daddy couldn't have butchered Kashmir for the Godzilla soundtrack, I wouldn't have seen Page & Plant in concert, and I would be calling The Who the all-time best band I can think of.

Fortunately, despite how easy it is to not do it, enough people participate in market communication (aka consumerism) that these messages aren't destroyed completely, and the industry did change how they work. Early piracy presented a market message to the industry: Quit giving us one good song and 10 crap songs and making us buy them all. Thus legal MP3s were born. Legal MP3 purchases now make it possible to send messages about what kind of music the artist (studio planners) creates is worth our dollars.

So, keep in mind that every time you pirate a song or movie that you allow the market forces that decide what to create to be driven by teenage girls that will pay for crap by Cookie Cutter Boy Band. Personally, that reasoning is the only way I am able to justify the existence of Nickelback.

Thank you, Keef. The Nickelbacks of the world are all your fault.
 
FoolKiller
So, if I go to the library and take a published book to the copier and copy every single page, take the copies home, bind them up with some pretty artwork and place them on my shelf I have taken nothing from the author or the publishers?
Sounds like you used all the library's paper and toner, but that's about it. I realize that whether or not you can actually get away with that is besides the point. I've made copies of pages for reference before, and when I was asked what I was doing, I told them that. "Oh, okay."

You might also complain about people who take the book home, and then make copies of it at home. Unless you would prefer officers of the law to follow people back and forth from the library and into their homes to make sure they don't do anything so devastating such as that, then I guess be comfortable with the fact that people are going to do what they're going to do.

Are you also saying that publishers have no form of copyright to the mass published version?
Click to expand...
An author should have copyrights to his original versions. A publisher pays the author for access to those original versions. The publisher then does their thing to it. They obtained the original material legitimately, and now they've done the whole artwork and cover thing so as a whole it is a different work. They copyright it. All those books on the shelf are intended to be exact copies of the piece that the publisher copyrighted, and therefore they're eligible for that symbol inside the cover. When you buy the book you're buying the book, not the license to use it's copyrighted material as part of your own piece. At least that's how it would work in my little copyright world.

As for CDs, I don't know if the version on the CD is an exact copy of a version copyrighted by the producer. If it is, then you're not allowed to copy it as part of your own piece. If it isn't, then it's fair game.

The one thing a publisher or producer or artist can't do is claim copyright on something that sounds similar or looks similar or reads about the same as their original copyrighted work, unless this second version was intended by the publisher (or anybody else) to be an exact copy of the original.

Basically, a copyright holder has rights to any of their material that is copyrighted, but not to anybody else's material even if only one word is different.

Same situation as above. I make a copy of a print, frame it, and hang it on my wall. I hurt no one?
Click to expand...
Depending on what print it was, you may hurt the eyes of your guests. Plus there are a couple holes in your wall. But besides that, no.

You pay involuntary taxes that support the buying of the library's books and prints and whatnot. The taxed community effectively owns those materials. Don't like that idea? Don't pay involuntary taxes. And they can do as they please with them, just as if you'd bought the book at a store, at least until they try to make a copyright claim on something to which they hold no copyright. And then, unless the library (community) actually paid for a copyright license. At that point you can even change the book's title and republish it if you want.

Here is a more novel idea to consider: Instead of taking a copy of an official copy recognize the original artists work by legally obtaining an official copy.
Click to expand...
In order for a publisher to copyright and make a profit off an author's material, they must pay the author for access to the original material, change it, copyright it (optional), and then sell it.

When you buy a form of art, be it music, film, painting, literature, etc. your dollars send two messages. 1) A message to the publisher as to what you believe the physical value to be. 2) A message to the artist that you find value in their creation.
Click to expand...
When I pay the non-negotiable price of $15 for a CD, I'm sending a message as to what I believe the physical value to be? Eh, no. If I could bargain a lower price with them I would be sending a message as to what I believe the value to be. But Best Buy doesn't like bargaining. I'll seek cheaper deals, of course, but if it's not cheap enough then I won't buy it. By obtaining the material for free, the message I'm sending is that their non-negotiable price is too expensive, but if the price was negotiable I might have haggled a lower price and actually bought it.

Now imagine if Led Zeppelin had released their debut album and digital copying was possible the way it is today. Instead of receiving 50,000 pre-orders, hitting Billboard's Top 10 after two weeks, and staying there for 73 weeks it would have only sold a few thousand, but everyone had a copy. No matter how many people thought they loved it the market communication process would have sent a direct message to Atlantic Records and Jimmy Page that this experiment was a failure. That would have been their only album, Puff Daddy couldn't have butchered Kashmir for the Godzilla soundtrack, I wouldn't have seen Page & Plant in concert, and I would be calling The Who the all-time best band I can think of.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a realistic example of what might have happened. Despite illegal downloading being commonplace today, professional recording artists still have enough money to lobby Congress to change copyright laws in a way that benefits them. Now, if lobbying were illegal...

Fortunately, despite how easy it is to not do it, enough people participate in market communication (aka consumerism) that these messages aren't destroyed completely, and the industry did change how they work. Early piracy presented a market message to the industry: Quit giving us one good song and 10 crap songs and making us buy them all. Thus legal MP3s were born. Legal MP3 purchases now make it possible to send messages about what kind of music the artist (studio planners) creates is worth our dollars.
Click to expand...
I would pay $5 for an album. I might pay $10 for a good one. Occasionally I do pay that when they're on sale. But to buy an album for a dollar a song costs just as much as the whole album, which is what I want.

So, keep in mind that every time you pirate a song or movie that you allow the market forces that decide what to create to be driven by teenage girls that will pay for crap by Cookie Cutter Boy Band. Personally, that reasoning is the only way I am able to justify the existence of Nickelback.

Thank you, Keef. The Nickelbacks of the world are all your fault.
Click to expand...
That's pretty clever reasoning, actually. I like that. Luckily, me listening to anything made after the late 90s is exceedingly rare.

I know that, within the current system of copyright laws, obtaining something for free like so many people do is wrong. But without a decent system with which I can offer up what I think something should be worth, which is probably considerably less than what they're charging because money is tight, I choose to do it the cheap way.

I may be a bad libertarian, but at least I vote for the right people, eh? I could be like Omnis and think we should all follow anarcho-capitalism and hope and pray that all this theory of private police forces and court systems actually pans out.
Click to expand...
 
Keef
But besides that, no.
Click to expand...
So, you seriously believe that by obtaining copies of creative works in a way that sees zero financial return to the original creator that you are harming no one? You are getting the pleasure of their creation without compensating them for that pleasure.

To say that because it is digital sampling and not the original master copy makes it OK is to turn a blind eye to the idea of giving the creator any tangible recognition.

You pay involuntary taxes that support the buying of the library's books and prints and whatnot. The taxed community effectively owns those materials.
Click to expand...
As communal property. In my example you copy communal property and create a near-exact replica as your own individual copy.

Don't like that idea? Don't pay involuntary taxes.
Click to expand...
While this statement works for the library example it doesn't for most examples of piracy.

In order for a publisher to copyright and make a profit off an author's material, they must pay the author for access to the original material, change it, copyright it (optional), and then sell it.
Click to expand...
Which they do. Not sure what this has to do with what I said.

When I pay the non-negotiable price of $15 for a CD, I'm sending a message as to what I believe the physical value to be? Eh, no.
Click to expand...
You paid $15 for it. Why would you do it if you didn't find it to be that value?

If I could bargain a lower price with them I would be sending a message as to what I believe the value to be. But Best Buy doesn't like bargaining. I'll seek cheaper deals, of course, but if it's not cheap enough then I won't buy it.
Click to expand...
So, then you are saying that none of the available prices are worth what they charge.

By obtaining the material for free, the message I'm sending is that their non-negotiable price is too expensive, but if the price was negotiable I might have haggled a lower price and actually bought it.
Click to expand...
You think they receive that message? Money is the communication device in the market. And what message do you send to the original creator, that his creation is not worth you giving them some money?

I don't think this is a realistic example of what might have happened.
Click to expand...
You realize the exaggeration is on purpose to show how money is used to communicate within a market, right?

Despite illegal downloading being commonplace today, professional recording artists still have enough money to lobby Congress to change copyright laws in a way that benefits them.
Click to expand...
I hope you don't think that makes it OK.

Now, if lobbying were illegal...
Click to expand...
Guns would be illegal, Kentucky would still have a motorcycle helmet law, and gay marriage would still be illegal in New York.

I would pay $5 for an album. I might pay $10 for a good one. Occasionally I do pay that when they're on sale. But to buy an album for a dollar a song costs just as much as the whole album, which is what I want.
Click to expand...
Really, you like every song on every album of every artist you enjoy? Never a bad song that you wish you didn't also pay for? I call bull. "Led Zeppelin didn't write music that everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees."

That's pretty clever reasoning, actually. I like that. Luckily, me listening to anything made after MP3s began is exceedingly rare.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

I know that, within the current system of copyright laws, obtaining something for free like so many people do is wrong. But without a decent system with which I can offer up what I think something should be worth, which is probably considerably less than what they're charging because money is tight, I choose to do it the cheap way.
Click to expand...
Compromising principles to save a few bucks, eh?
 
Keef
I know that, within the current system of copyright laws, obtaining something for free like so many people do is wrong. But without a decent system with which I can offer up what I think something should be worth, which is probably considerably less than what they're charging because money is tight, I choose to do it the cheap way.
Click to expand...

Apply this to food. I can't negotiate with the grocery store for what I think their loaf of bread is worth. Does that mean I can steal it?

Again, the bottom line is why you value your lossy copy. Who created the value that you seek to obtain by creating or downloading the lossy copy? Who owns that value? That's all that matters - not whether what you have is identical, but who worked to make it valuable.
 
So according to Keef's logic here, I could buy the latest Harry Potter novel, scan it and post it on a website, and there's nothing J. K. Rowling could do about it. Right.
 
Omnis
We only send the best and brightest to Washington.
Click to expand...

Is this for real? Honestly, I'd love to hear him explain how the island will "cap size".

Well....you see, when to many people... go.. to.. one side of the island..... um, yes that cause...a... tipping effect... which...ummm, effectively tips the island over...like a capsize tips over.
 
From the comments....

"dont let every one go to the middle or it will taco" :lol:

That is actually a pretty common response from an ultra lib not liking something, oh nooooos the very existence of man is a detriment to the earth, we should all stop living.
 
I like how he thinks that he's questioning the environmental impact without asking any real questions regarding environmental impact. You'd think a professional would read up before quizzing the brass.
 
I hate how they put "to fight child abuse" and other things so people only sound worse by questioning it. Basically the same thing they did with wire tapping, they hid behind the "fighting terrorists" thing and if you were to question it you were viewed as a terrorist.
 

Latest Posts

Back