• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

why paying for movies/games/audios?

I live my life the way I want to live it and the system can fuck itself. It works out pretty well for me.
 
Wikipedia.org said:
In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent.

...

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
Click to expand...

alasdairm, how is 'duplicating' at all similar to 'taking'? If I take something from you, you no longer possess it. If I duplicate something of yours, you still possess it, therefore I didn't take it. I haven't permanently deprived the owner of any form of digital information if I copied it.


Stealing is only stealing if you physically deprive someone of something.
 
In many instances copyright infringement is a victimless crime.

If I copy a song off the radio or TV my rights to do so are protected by law. In Canada it is also legal to download music, providing you don't upload, unless there has been some changes in the last year or so.

Hypothetically speaking if someone downloads an album that they would not have bought under any circumstances there is no loss of revenue and the artist is not deprived of profit.

The problem is that album prices are inflated above what the public is willing to pay. If album prices dropped to $5 a cd sales would increase and piracy most likely would decline. The record company doesn't want to do that because they lose profit and can't pay the artists the amount they desire. The recording industry as it stands is built on price fixing. It's now facing an alternative to which it has failed to adapt.

Theft and copyright infringement are two different things. One refers to physical property, the other to intellectual property. Any analogies that tie physical objects to intellectual property will fail.
 
Coolio said:
I'm not fucking someone over by not giving them my money. I think it's disgusting that people can be sued by companies for things like loss of potential income, corporate executives can be fired for things like loss of potential profits, people can be jailed for things like potential consequences of actions, and so on. These potentials don't exist until they become realized. They're considered potentials for a reason - they don't exist yet. For me to tip the probabilistic scales in favor of the potential not becoming realized is not causing you any harm. For you to punish me for tipping the scale against your favor, is a grave injustice.
Click to expand...
Then all shopping venues should be free of any security checks or manned cash out points. Instead, everywhere should be a self serve environment, based strictly on honour, morals, conscience.

Sorry, but the world does not work that way. Why? Precisely because people instantly revert to the same "Finders keepers" attitude which you're defending here. In an ideal world, everything would be free. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. As long as there exists a currency - be it money, gold, or clamshells - there will always be a need to enforce assignment of fair value to merchandise which that currency can buy. That is how balance is achieved - on the one side you have currency, on the other you have merchandise. The two exchange places and the cycle carries on. What your system proposes is for you to have both the money and the merchandise on one side - yours. That's not capitalism, that's plain greed!
 
Eh, I think you nailed it. It's a combination of not giving a fuck and easy access, plus inflated prices and all the other stuff we discussed too. Is it right ? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't feel guilty for listening to some downloaded music.
 
Coolio said:
Wikipedia.org:
In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent.


alasdairm, how is 'duplicating' at all similar to 'taking'? If I take something from you, you no longer possess it. If I duplicate something of yours, you still possess it, therefore I didn't take it. I haven't permanently deprived the owner of any form of digital information if I copied it.


Stealing is only stealing if you physically deprive someone of something.
Click to expand...



You keep answering your own question! I highlighted the answer for you... again.
 
Is it stealing if I go into toys r us and duplicated an xbox 360 ? No. I might be stealing their design, but thats it.
 
SillyAlien, music is NOT merchandise. CD's and vinyl might be merchandise. But music is INFORMATION. It can be encoded biologically, electronically, optically, etc. and duplicated infinitely for free without depriving anyone of any of the original copies.

I can't wait until they invent nano-replication machines and you can copy a car for free.
 
SillyAlien, you highlighted a sentence with the word 'taking' in it. Do you know what 'taking' means?

m-w.com said:
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically <took them as prisoners> b : to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing
Click to expand...

Seize. Capture physically.
 
Coolio said:
SillyAlien, music is NOT merchandise. CD's and vinyl might be merchandise. But music is INFORMATION. It can be encoded biologically, electronically, optically, etc. and duplicated infinitely for free without depriving anyone of any of the original copies.

I can't wait until they invent nano-replication machines and you can copy a car for free.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how you classify music versus all else. What matters is that someone owns that music ('s rights). Whether I hit someone, take their wallet, take their car for a drive, tell them to go fuck themselves, or take their music... as long as they are willing participants in my interaction with them, all is good. The minute I do anything against their will, I am commiting an injustice and if that act is covered by law (such as copyright), then I'm committing a crime. Simple as that.
 
Coolio said:
I live my life the way I want to live it and the system can fuck itself. It works out pretty well for me.
Click to expand...

You live how you want to live and the system fucking itself works out pretty well for you?

Ahh I don't think a system can fuck itself. But you believe what you want cause I am sure it will only help your situation! 8)


So you really don't believe that data physically exists, huh?
 
SillyAlien.. what?!?! As soon as you do something against someone else's will, it's an injustice? Do you know what freedom means? It means the ability to do things against other peoples' wills, offensive things, corrupting things, distasteful things, as long as I don't physically harm or deprive them. Hurting your feelings, offending you, not giving you my money, not upholding my responsibilities to you, etc. are not injustices, they're my goddamn freedoms.

Crimes are crimes because corporate interests created our modern legal system. If you think the legal system benefits humanity, what the hell are you doing on Bluelight, a forum consistingly mostly of drug users?
 
Coolio said:
SillyAlien, music is NOT merchandise. CD's and vinyl might be merchandise. But music is INFORMATION. It can be encoded biologically, electronically, optically, etc. and duplicated infinitely for free without depriving anyone of any of the original copies.

I can't wait until they invent nano-replication machines and you can copy a car for free.
Click to expand...

I bet you don't believe in proprietary information either? If so, I am quite sure that you are using some of it right now, inside of your computer. Way to tell the system to go fuck itself. Congrats man, seriously.
 
Hatious, no. Information wants to be free. I'm for a transparent information society, where there's no legal framework to enforce the private or proprietary status of information, protocols, software, politics, etc.

This is the natural state of the world.
 
Coolio said:
SillyAlien.. what?!?! As soon as you do something against someone else's will, it's an injustice? Do you know what freedom means? It means the ability to do things against other peoples' wills, offensive things, corrupting things, distasteful things, as long as I don't physically harm or deprive them. Hurting your feelings, offending you, not giving you my money, not upholding my responsibilities to you, etc. are not injustices, they're my goddamn freedoms.

Crimes are crimes because corporate interests created our modern legal system. If you think the legal system benefits humanity, what the hell are you doing on Bluelight, a forum consistingly mostly of drug users?
Click to expand...

injustice:
1. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.
2. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.
3. an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

I do not need separation of meaning of crime from injustice. You, on the other hand...
 
Information can't want to be free, it doesn't have the cognitive capacity to desire such a thing. And as such, what you just said doesn't actually make any sense.

Your idea of a transparent information society would never work and is never going to happen. Never in the recorded history of human kind has such a thing even existed. If it has, such a system would have easily been dominated and controlled.

I feel what you are saying to a small extent, but honestly wake up. It isn't realistic.

This thread is getting off topic.
 
wizekrak said:
Theft and copyright infringement are two different things. One refers to physical property, the other to intellectual property. Any analogies that tie physical objects to intellectual property will fail.
Click to expand...
i agree and i think that's the crux of the disconnect.

those who copy music feel that, because they're not physically depriving somebody of something, what they're doing is ok. i've speculated that most of that is just bullshit rationalisation and i think sillyalien's point about coolio having to scroll halfway through a list of definitions to find one that fits reinforces that.

i feel that if an artist creates something, they should be allowed to at least try to profit from their creation. those who copy say no - i'm entitled to a copy for nothing. i guess it's that sense of entitlement which frustrates me so much. what on earth makes people think they're entitled? coolio, psychetool - care to answer that?

to me it's simply selfish and it reminds me of spoiled kids but maybe i'm stretching it a little far now. their arguments certainly strike me a childish as does the "me! now!" attitude in general.

finally, i truly hope these people one day create something and it is stolen. not because i wish them misfortune or harm. just because i think that's the only way they might catch a glimpse of what it feels like...

alasdair
 
It is realistic. I don't think you appreciate the exponential rate at which technological progress is being made. In our lifetimes self-replicating nanomachines, true artificial intelligence, cyborgs and androids and robots and eugenics and infinitely complex genetic engineering and infinite amounts of clean energy and all sorts of other sci-fi concepts from the 20th century are going to become reality. Humanity might not last very much longer, but its technology will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top