|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 11, 2011 16:15:24 GMT -5
If it's about the deprival of sales, how about retail chains that sell used games and/or music? When I buy a used game the company that created it gets no money. How about if I buy an album, download the whole thing onto my computer, and then sell it on eBay, actually let's make this more fun, I buy it cheap on eBay, download all the songs, and then sell it. At this point I am actually making money from somebody's intellectual work. I view that, that is to say the selling of used games, as the sale of your license to use the game. Which is, as I understand it, how the game companies see it as well (some of them, at any right). That is to say that when you buy a copy of that game, you've really purchased a license to use it. You may sell or transfer that license as you wish. You may not reproduce it. The music is...well, I dunno. I don't have an answer. Not having an answer to a question like this is a strong indicator that there is a flaw somewhere in your logic and/or thought process. This is the point where a good skeptic has to reevaluate his stance on an issue. Because that is the point of my questions, to see where the lines are drawn, why they are where they are, and if they are drawn in a consistent manner. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Apr 11, 2011 16:37:51 GMT -5
...is this a parody? Please tell me that it's a parody. Nothing can be that openly horrible.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 11, 2011 17:24:05 GMT -5
...is this a parody? Please tell me that it's a parody. Nothing can be that openly horrible. You doubt the depths of human stupidity? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Apr 11, 2011 17:36:21 GMT -5
[ Not having an answer to a question like this is a strong indicator that there is a flaw somewhere in your logic and/or thought process. This is the point where a good skeptic has to reevaluate his stance on an issue. Because that is the point of my questions, to see where the lines are drawn, why they are where they are, and if they are drawn in a consistent manner. Or it could mean that piracy and copyright infringement is not a cut and dried issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Considering my primary point was that placing copyrighted materials on the internet, for free, without the permission of the rights holder (in many cases, specifically against their wishes) is theft. And therefore, wrong. That line is hard and fast. The line of the legality or morality of reselling CDs (or libraries lending CDs) is a far more gray issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 11, 2011 17:41:47 GMT -5
[ Not having an answer to a question like this is a strong indicator that there is a flaw somewhere in your logic and/or thought process. This is the point where a good skeptic has to reevaluate his stance on an issue. Because that is the point of my questions, to see where the lines are drawn, why they are where they are, and if they are drawn in a consistent manner. Or it could mean that piracy and copyright infringement is not a cut and dried issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Considering my primary point was that placing copyrighted materials on the internet, for free, without the permission of the rights holder (in many cases, specifically against their wishes) is theft. And therefore, wrong. That line is hard and fast. The line of the legality or morality of reselling CDs (or libraries lending CDs) is a far more gray issue. Um... Okay, so let me get this straight. You buy a statue from me. I have the right to come over to your house, dictate where you can put it, and if I don't like the direction its facing, I can smash it. Is that right? Not to mention that, if you display it outside, I can call you a thief, because you are allowing people other than yourself to see it. Is that right? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Apr 11, 2011 18:15:31 GMT -5
[Okay, so let me get this straight. You buy a statue from me. I have the right to come over to your house, dictate where you can put it, and if I don't like the direction its facing, I can smash it. Is that right? Not to mention that, if you display it outside, I can call you a thief, because you are allowing people other than yourself to see it. Is that right? Uh, no. If I purchase a statue from you, I can't mass reproduce it to give away or sell. Unless I negotiated with you for the right to do so. Would it be OK for me to take an episode of Smallville I bought off Amazon Unbox and post it here for everyone to download for free? Does giving away free copies really fall under "personal use"? We have laws protecting fair use of copyrighted material. If you reproduce a work you don't own, in full, that is a violation. I fail to see the inherent unfairness. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 11, 2011 18:24:26 GMT -5
[ Not having an answer to a question like this is a strong indicator that there is a flaw somewhere in your logic and/or thought process. This is the point where a good skeptic has to reevaluate his stance on an issue. Because that is the point of my questions, to see where the lines are drawn, why they are where they are, and if they are drawn in a consistent manner. Or it could mean that piracy and copyright infringement is not a cut and dried issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Considering my primary point was that placing copyrighted materials on the internet, for free, without the permission of the rights holder (in many cases, specifically against their wishes) is theft. And therefore, wrong. That line is hard and fast. The line of the legality or morality of reselling CDs (or libraries lending CDs) is a far more gray issue. So, it's the usage of the internet that makes it wrong, not the act of copying somebody else's intellectual property? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Apr 11, 2011 18:31:48 GMT -5
So, it's the usage of the internet that makes it wrong, not the act of copying somebody else's intellectual property? Ok, fine: Morally speaking (can't say as I know the specifics of the law), it is wrong to copy the content of anything and then resell it for profit or even just negation of the money spent. That said, at the day's end there is only one violating copy created for one person. What the next bloke down the line does is on their head. When you place the digital version of something out on the internet for free download, you create (potentially) millions of copies. Even if you don't profit from the act, you've still (potentially) robbed the person who created/owns the rights to that art of millions of sales. You've cost those who own a legal copy of the art they're trying to resell as a law abiding merchant of sales. You have caused a wide reaching negative impact. It is worse, like the difference between five over and thirty over. Neither is OK, but one is worse and needs to be dealt with more harshly. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 11, 2011 18:38:51 GMT -5
Why the fuck hasn't this thread been split into F&B by now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Apr 11, 2011 18:48:08 GMT -5
Why the fuck hasn't this thread been split into F&B by now? I don't know. I was perfectly willing to let this die on an agree to disagree basis like a page ago. I just keep getting asked questions, which I have to answer according to the rules. I want it to die. I really don't care this much, other than that a political party whose whole goal is to abolish copyright protections is stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Apr 11, 2011 18:56:30 GMT -5
Hey I started a Copyright Thread in Flame and Burn now get the Fuck out of the Cartoons thread.
MOAR CARTOONS
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Apr 11, 2011 19:33:00 GMT -5
...is this a parody? Please tell me that it's a parody. Nothing can be that openly horrible. Either way it's absolutely horrifying. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Apr 11, 2011 23:57:12 GMT -5
I can't tell. I searched "worse political cartoons" and found it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Apr 12, 2011 1:11:11 GMT -5
gawker.com/#!5065984/worlds-worst-editorial-cartoonist-shares-wonderful-colin-powell-traitor-cartoon
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 12, 2011 3:04:54 GMT -5
gawker.com/#!5065984/worlds-worst-editorial-cartoonist-shares-wonderful-colin-powell-traitor-cartoon Fucking autoformat being tripped up by a hashmark... |
|
