Your View on Pirating

omg not z big nasty corporations!!1 steal and rob from them don't give them a cent! :rolleyes:
 
Solaris said:
Why?
I'm not a cheapskate, I'm a very good consumer, I work all weekend and then spend the money straight away on shit I don't want or need. Consumerism sucks. Corporations suck and I couldn't give a **** what happens to them.
Click to expand...
So you're saying someone who works hard to found a successful company is evil because of that? You do realise companys like E.A. and Microsoft were founded by people just like me and you (well maybe not you).

Isn't communism about equal rights for all classes? Isn't saying it's okay to steal from the rich, but not the poor fascism?
 
Of course solaris would not support the big men because he is not a big man.
 
Solaris said:
Why?
I'm not a cheapskate, I'm a very good consumer, I work all weekend and then spend the money straight away on shit I don't want or need. Consumerism sucks. Corporations suck and I couldn't give a **** what happens to them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you should exercise some ****ing restraint instead of being a hypocrite.
 
look i don't meant to insult you for laughs,

but you are really full of shit Solaris. Your ideals are just leaking everywhere.
 
its alright as long as the balls don't touch...

in all seriousness however i think that piracy is morally wrong , but a lot of us(yes us) continue to do so because we either do not have the means to acquire what we're downloading or we have a stupid preconceived notion that it doesn't make a difference, while this might be true in some cases (larger corporations) it still does deal quite a blow if you put it into figures. i really hate the argument that the people that pirate these things wouldn't buy it anyway because if they didn't have an illegal means to acquire it for free they would be forced to buy the product. so... does this make me a hypocrite ? perhaps, i don't pirate games (don't need to with steam prices) and most of the software that i have pirated are products that don't really profit from individual users or at least thats how i justify it in my head :p. although i am making it a point to wean off piracy , with Microsoft's free IDEs and OpenSource alternatives pirating software is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

edit: i know that sort of nullifies my statement against the whole "they wont buy it anyway" argument because switching to an alternative is just as good as pirating but the same doesn't apply to music,movies,books etc.
 
Solaris said:
Well then I hurt normal people who are fired because their shop is closed because no-one went there, by your logic you are responsible for all the people fired because you didn't shop at their stores. It is not my responsibility to perpetuate capitalism.
Click to expand...

That's not the point I was making, what I was saying was that the argument you used for the pair of jeans doesn't work in this situation.
 
Docm30 said:
So you're saying someone who works hard to found a successful company is evil because of that? You do realise companys like E.A. and Microsoft were founded by people just like me and you (well maybe not you).

Isn't communism about equal rights for all classes? Isn't saying it's okay to steal from the rich, but not the poor fascism?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they're evil, I'm saying they perpetuate 'evil'.

And communism is not about equal rights for all classes, it's about all power to the workers and the removal of classes.

Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you should exercise some ****ing restraint instead of being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I'm not being a hypocrite, I dislike capitalism becuase it makes people live in poverty and live shitty lives, using the benifits of capitalism doesn't make me a hypocrite becuase I'm not saying the benifits are rubbish.

look i don't meant to insult you for laughs,

but you are really full of shit Solaris. Your ideals are just leaking everywhere.
Click to expand...
**** you.

Thats the very foundation, Solaris does not seem to understand socialism.
Click to expand...
Don't tell me I don't understand socialism, I understand it 1000x better than you, and if only you did, you would be a socialist too.
 
Solaris said:
Don't tell me I don't understand socialism, I understand it 1000x better than you, and if only you did, you would be a socialist too.
Click to expand...

I am a Socialist, and the very foundation is that all humans are equal. We are not just talking equal rights here, but equal income, value etc...

I have studied marx work at a univeristy cource.
 
HunterSeeker said:
I am a Socialist, and the very foundation is that all humans are equal. We are not just talking equal rights here, but equal income, value etc...

I have studied marx work at a univeristy cource.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, so it is wrong to say all classes would be treated the same, because there would only be one class. The removal of the class system is socialisms primary aim.
 
if we didn't have a class system, how would we know who to make fun of?
 
I'm in favor of the abolition of intellectual property with a very long transitional period (decades). We have a situation of infinite supply, which is pretty darned amazing. Now everyone can take in as much art and culture with no impact on production. Any economic system that artificially limits the supply doesn't make sense. Basically we're on the brink of another economic revolution, and just like before the Industrial Revolution, people are afraid and unsure of the future. But just like the mass production of shoes didn't mean the death of the shoe industry (cobblers just became designers and engineers), the digital revolution will not mean the death of art or R&D. Individuals will just have to come up with a new way of getting money form their work (sponsorship comes to mind).

Besides, artists and companies are shooting themselves in the foot by sticking to intellectual property so firmly. Since there is infinite supply anyone with a bit of interest will try your product and chances are you'll get more people who would not have made the effort then lose people who would. Like how piracy of Flash and Photoshop has made them industry standards. People start off pirating expensive studio software, get hooked on the interface, and become customers when they feel guilty about not supporting Adobe/Macromedia (RIP).
 
I'll kill you all to keep Intellectual Property in force. If I write a book, or write a program, or record a song, I want to be able to benefit from it. I've spent long hours learning how to do so, without any benefit. Those who recieve it benefit from it. I deserve some compensation for doing so, and other people shouldn't be able to take it without my permission, or claim it as their own.

-Angry Lawyer
 
If you abolish intelectual property then there is little to no insentive left to write, invent or code anything.
 
riomhaire said:
If you abolish intelectual property then there is little to no insentive left to write, invent or code anything.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

I mean, you have to have passion to do a lot of these things. But passion alone isn't enough for most people if they're just going to be performing thankless tasks.
 
Absinthe said:
Pretty much.

I mean, you have to have passion to do a lot of these things. But passion alone isn't enough for most people if they're just going to be performing thankless tasks.
Click to expand...

But then how did things like Linux get so far, then? Because they can still make money, just in a different way.

Look at The War of the Worlds. That book is still being sold today, even though the author has been dead and buried for 60 years, and people can freely copy it and sell it themselves, if they wish.
 
Planetary said:
But then how did things like Linux get so far, then? Because they can still make money, just in a different way.
Click to expand...

Of cource there will still be projects created out of passion, the problem is that they will not replace the projects created with an economic incentive and we will find ourselves with maybe 1/2% of the creations we have today.

Look at The War of the Worlds. That book is still being sold today, even though the author has been dead and buried for 60 years, and people can freely copy it and sell it themselves, if they wish.
Click to expand...

Its paindul to read a book at a monitor and I am sure as hell not going to print it myself, this does not nessacerly apply to software.
 
Planetary said:
But then how did things like Linux get so far, then? Because they can still make money, just in a different way.

Look at The War of the Worlds. That book is still being sold today, even though the author has been dead and buried for 60 years, and people can freely copy it and sell it themselves, if they wish.
Click to expand...

Those are some very finite examples. The vast majority of commerce in the western world (particularly the successful kind) is based on capitalist ideals. And in the case of the book, how much and how often do you think it would be reprinted if people weren't being paid to do it?

Product quality and distribution, as well as scientific and technological advancements, hinge largely on monetary incentives or something equitable. You may eventually get the same results in a purely socialist system, but I can guarantee you it would take far, far longer.

The only other system that can achieve something close to this efficiency is authoritarianism, but that comes with an army of problems and is susceptible to simply burning itself out.
 
Intellectual property is, at its core, an absurdity. No one owns a string of letters that form a book or the thoughts of an idea. These are not real property as they are not scarce, they can be infinitely reproduced. A creator may wish to create artificial scarcity of their work through the marketplace of course. What they cannot do is use the force of government to monopolize an infinite commodity.

Just because we cannot conceive of a world without intellectual property does not mean it is not possible. No one could guess how the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions would pan out. We are undergoing a Digital Revolution right now and intellectual property functions as if we were not.

Listen, I'm an artist, I have the most to lose (at least at face value), and I admit I have no idea how everything will pan out without IP, but I'm confident the market will survive. It is not the monopoly on an image or whatever that gives it value, it is the skill behind it. Success does not depend on the law but on the individual.

But honestly, I'm saying this right now and thinking I'm crazy. I half think its what we need and half feeling like I'm screwing myself over. I'm simultaneously thinking we should never stop someone from seeing a beautiful image or a moving film so long as no coercive force is used and also thinking how will I survive.
 
Even so, I think the biggest fault with the current copyright system is the sheer length of time it lasts, which is quite a bit more then the other kinds of IP.

Trademarks last as long as they're defended, patents are around 20 years, while copyrights are (in America, at least) 70 years after the author is dead.

That's right. Apparently corpses need money. And don't say anything about relatives needing revenue; why can't they produce something original instead of profiting off their ancestors hard work?
Look at J.R.R. Tolkien, he's dead. He doesn't give a damn what people do with his writings. But his son does. So as a result, no legal electronic copies of those texts, not for a long time anyway.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe, just maybe, a shorter term might not be so bad an idea?
When copyright first started in the 15th century, it was only 14 years, which was thought to be plenty of time to make as much money as they wanted, and when it was over, all people would be able to benefit from it.

I personally am of the belief that 2 decades is the uppermost fair limit to copyright, as if a creator honestly can't produce something new in twenty years, they don't really deserve much anyway.

EDIT: This is a reply to Absinthe and HunterSeeker
 
BaconIsGood4You said:
Intellectual property is, at its core, an absurdity. No one owns a string of letters that form a book or the thoughts of an idea. These are not real property as they are not scarce, they can be infinitely reproduced. A creator may wish to create artificial scarcity of their work through the marketplace of course. What they cannot do is use the force of government to monopolize an infinite commodity.

Just because we cannot conceive of a world without intellectual property does not mean it is not possible. No one could guess how the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions would pan out. We are undergoing a Digital Revolution right now and intellectual property functions as if we were not.

Listen, I'm an artist, I have the most to lose (at least at face value), and I admit I have no idea how everything will pan out without IP, but I'm confident the market will survive. It is not the monopoly on an image or whatever that gives it value, it is the skill behind it. Success does not depend on the law but on the individual.

But honestly, I'm saying this right now and thinking I'm crazy. I half think its what we need and half feeling like I'm screwing myself over. I'm simultaneously thinking we should never stop someone from seeing a beautiful image or a moving film so long as no coercive force is used and also thinking how will I survive.
Click to expand...

Then distribute your work for free if you really want to. But it is not the obligation of anybody else to do the same. Just because you expect monetary compense doesn't mean you're stopping anybody from seeing or otherwise experiencing your work. Nobody's being actively impeded.

Your argument against intellectual property - based on the fact that words and ideas are infinite - is a fallacy of composition. It's not the base "materials" being regulated and protected, but the products they are being used to form.
 
Absinthe said:
Your argument against intellectual property - based on the fact that words and ideas are infinite - is a fallacy of composition. It's not the base "materials" being regulated and protected, but the products they are being used to form.
Click to expand...

How is property rights not the materials? The purpose of property rights is to limit conflict in a world with scarce resources. For example, would it be theft if someone took my book if one would instantly pop into its place? They have not denied me of anything, there is no conflict. Ideas are not scarce, they are infinitely reproducible, while physical property is not.

The product is not protected because it is an idea, knowledge is uncontrollable and infinite, it is protected because it takes limited resources to create. To have ideas become property the creator then usurps the tangible property of everyone else. Ownership implies complete control (so long as it does not damage anothers property), so if they cannot do whatever they please with it (cannot put the ink in certain patterns on paper), the IP holder has take some measure of ownership.

I found a good read for the Austrian/libertarian argument against IP. Ya' don't have to buy in, but its worth the read.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Basically my original thought on this topic is that we are creating a situation of arbitrary scarcity when we have the unprecedented opportunity for infinite supply of the arts. We should strive to work towards a world were we all can enjoy this boon. We must not be so set in our ways and not look to change, we must take this opportunity. Just because we are so used to a world built on intellectual property that we cannot readily conceive of a world with such laws does not mean it is impossible.
 
They have ducked out of an equitable exchange. They have benefited themselves without any compensation for your efforts in creating and supplying the product. If you have no problem with this, then fine. But the next person is entirely justified in his frustration if he believes that he should receive something in return for the service he has provided. Literary works might be made up of infinite resources, but they still require time, dedication, and skill. Copyright protection exists to encourage innovation. You seem to think that just because the base materials are intangible and infinite, there's no reason to protect and reward those who shape them into products. That's ludicrous. These things do not spring up into being on their own. They require a human being behind them who has poured his or her energy into their creation.

I can certainly conceive a world without intellectual property, and it entails a world of apathy and an unwillingness of most people to extensively pursue their ideas and their art because they are entitled to zilch for their own efforts. I know I personally would be absolutely livid if one of my songs was being used and exploited widely by others for commercial means without my permission and I wasn't seeing a dime.
 
Solaris said:
You are not a socialist.

It is not wrong to steal from big companies, why do I give a shit it the chair of directors gets $99999999 instead of $10000000 because I stole from him. I don't, the fact is, he is so rich by exploiting and stealing if you will allow the term the labor of his workers who he pays very little compared to how much money they make for him.

Karl Marx discovered that Bourgeoisie become rich at the expense of the proletariat, my boss has to shout at me and pay me low wages and be unreasonable if he wants to make a shit load of money, its that law of capitalism. I do not think capitalism is a morally acceptable order of society. Also, I do not believe the company owns the things they have on their shelves, it belongs to the workers, who's sweat and labor went into producing it.

It's not stealing, because the products where acquired through a morally corrupt system (capitalism). While taking something from the shelves of wall mart doesn't really help combat capitalism (much) it neither has a negative effect, the people who suffer have too much money to start with.

However, when it's a family run grocery shop, stealing has direct consequences on decent hard working people, so that is wrong.

Death to the Bourgeoisie!
Click to expand...

I don't mean to jump on the argument late (more like flamefest...), but you are NOT a socialist. You are just some wanna-be ****tard who brandishes himself with the term "socialist" because it's risque and makes you stand out.

A true socialist wouldn't justify stealing from the people. Socialism is the government for the people. How the hell does stealing from a the corporations, an essential backbone for the people, further the people?
 
Planetary said:
:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

You had me there for a moment, I admit it! I actually thought you were serious! I came to senses, luckily.
Click to expand...

I'm serious. If you disbanded all American corporations, at this very moment, then we'd all fall into a deep depression.

Sure, it is possible to build a successful nation without corporations, but we're not talking about "what if we were in an anarcho-socialist country", we're talking about stealing from an already existing corporation, in an already existing state, that, because of how it was formed, requires the existence of those corporations to function.
 
It's very true, without corporations we'd be screwed in our current way of living
 
sinkoman said:
I don't mean to jump on the argument late (more like flamefest...), but you are NOT a socialist. You are just some wanna-be ****tard who brandishes himself with the term "socialist" because it's risque and makes you stand out.

A true socialist wouldn't justify stealing from the people. Socialism is the government for the people. How the hell does stealing from a the corporations, an essential backbone for the people, further the people?
Click to expand...

Of course not, no socialist would steal from the people, that is what capitalists do. However, corporations are not the people, they are the enemy. They force children to work in sweatshops for barely enough to live on, they treat staff like shit and pay them a meagre percent of the profits they make for the company.

Corporations are not an essential backbone of the people, they rob the people of their labour, the perpetuate and are the very heartless and greedy essence of capitalism. If a socialist revolution took place, I have no doubt they corporations would do everything possible to stop it, they would fund soldiers to put it down as it would be such a threat to their capital and greed.

You may question my motives for being a socialist, I myself know I became one when I read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which is a book with a socialist character and thought that guy made a hell of a lot of sense, but if the ad hominess's make you feel better then so be it.

I'm surprised at how many of you are so quick and passionate to defend these corporations, compared to the shit they do, petty theft is a long way off the justice they deserve.
 
sinkoman said:
I'm serious. If you disbanded all American corporations, at this very moment, then we'd all fall into a deep depression.
Click to expand...

Not all corporations. If I could do it, I'd just get the various oil companies, military contractors (laser-guided democracy), tobacco guys, and of course our friends the pharmaceutical companies, out of business, or at least change their business so as to sell something... oh I dunno... productive? The world doesn't need more X-27s or T-43s or M-54s or Zoloft or Cialis or Ritalin or Camel cigars or whatever, does it?
 
Solaris said:
Of course not, no socialist would steal from the people, that is what capitalists do. However, corporations are not the people, they are the enemy. They force children to work in sweatshops for barely enough to live on, they treat staff like shit and pay them a meagre percent of the profits they make for the company.

Corporations are not an essential backbone of the people, they rob the people of their labour, the perpetuate and are the very heartless and greedy essence of capitalism. If a socialist revolution took place, I have no doubt they corporations would do everything possible to stop it, they would fund soldiers to put it down as it would be such a threat to their capital and greed.

You may question my motives for being a socialist, I myself know I became one when I read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which is a book with a socialist character and thought that guy made a hell of a lot of sense, but if the ad hominess's make you feel better then so be it.

I'm surprised at how many of you are so quick and passionate to defend these corporations, compared to the shit they do, petty theft is a long way off the justice they deserve.
Click to expand...

I've yet to ever see you ever make a remark that'd show you as a true socialist.

You don't mean to insinuate that your rebellious crap has anything to do with socialism, do you?

It is possible to be a socialist, and promote socialism, without being a rebellious and destructive dumb ****. Socialism has nothing to do with "sticking it to the man", "stealing from the rich", or "taking down the companies".

I myself have nothing to say against pirating, as I will admit that doing so would be highly hypocritical of me, but your justifications are absolutely absurd, and show that the only reason you're a self proclaimed socialist is because you think it's cool and different.

If your motives were otherwise, then you surely wouldn't have used "socialism" as your main justification for your pirating, as you would have realized that doing so would only contribute extraneous babble reasoned only to show off your political affiliation.

Socialism is good, i'll agree with you there, but you're using it as a vehicle for your own stylistic and reputation oriented agenda.

Planetary said:
Not all corporations. If I could do it, I'd just get the various oil companies, military contractors (laser-guided democracy), tobacco guys, and of course our friends the pharmaceutical companies, out of business, or at least change their business so as to sell something... oh I dunno... productive? The world doesn't need more X-27s or T-43s or M-54s or Zoloft or Cialis or Ritalin or Camel cigars or whatever, does it?
Click to expand...

Still, taking them down would really slump our current economy. I agree, the motives behind all those industrial sects are complete bullshit, but the sad fact is that our current economy relies on said bullshit.
 
sinkoman said:
I've yet to ever see you ever make a remark that'd show you as a true socialist.

You don't mean to insinuate that your rebellious crap has anything to do with socialism, do you?

It is possible to be a socialist, and promote socialism, without being a rebellious and destructive dumb ****. Socialism has nothing to do with "sticking it to the man", "stealing from the rich", or "taking down the companies".

I myself have nothing to say against pirating, as I will admit that doing so would be highly hypocritical of me, but your justifications are absolutely absurd, and show that the only reason you're a self proclaimed socialist is because you think it's cool and different.

If your motives were otherwise, then you surely wouldn't have used "socialism" as your main justification for your pirating, as you would have realized that doing so would only contribute extraneous babble reasoned only to show off your political affiliation.

Socialism is good, i'll agree with you there, but you're using it as a vehicle for your own stylistic and reputation oriented agenda.



Still, taking them down would really slump our current economy. I agree, the motives behind all those industrial sects are complete bullshit, but the sad fact is that our current economy relies on said bullshit.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand socialism first of all. I'm not going to 'prove' myself as a socialist for you, it's ridiculous. This is getting really tedious, stop ****ing whining about whether I am a true socialist or not and address my reasons. Hell, my reasoning for stealing from large corporations be it pirating or otherwise is not becuase it would help other throw capitalism but becuase the consequences are not negative.

There is a difference from stealing from a Family run grocery store and wall mart, one is immoral the other isn't. The reason for this is you stop a familly making an honest living when you steal from one, in the other, you prevent a fatcat from making a tiny bit more profit.

And stop calling me greedy, I've nether physically stolen anything in my life I'm just saying why it is not immoral to do so.
 
Copyright should indeed not last for so long as it does now, but it should definatly not be removed entirely.
 
I think if Copyright was entirely removed, Eric Bauman would be happy.
 
Given half the chance, I'd punch a lot of you in the chops.

Absinthe, if I ever go to North Carolina, we're going to go drink some capitalist scotch and capitalist beers, and be happy that people like Solaris don't have any actual political power.

-Angry Lawyer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
T
Steamfriends.net - a platform for finding new Steam friends
Replies
0
Views
4K
thorshammerdin
T
-smash-
Using Unity at Valve - Vision Summit 2016
Replies
5
Views
6K
Ennui
Ennui
Omnomnick
Valve Announces Source 2 + Steam Link [GDC 2015]
2
Replies
67
Views
37K
Skyace65
S
DER KRAKEN
Who is the G-Man? G-Man theories....
Replies
3
Views
38K
PixelDude45
P
Back
Top