Solaris
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,318
- Reaction score
- 4
Who makes the machines, maintains them ect.
Electronic Piracy
- Thread starter >>FrEnZy<<
- Start date
kirovman
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 8,462
- Reaction score
- 0
What are you implying? That a worker who assembles a small part of a complex machine owns the IP rights to any songs made on it in the future, after it's sold to another company?
Also:
It's not the 19th Century anymore. Poor old Oliver Twist churning out thousands of CDs for tuppence.
Solaris
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,318
- Reaction score
- 4
\I'm saying its just as bad for the musician to buy goods from a company that exploits the labour of its workers as it is for a worker to download music.
kirovman
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 8,462
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you have any evidence that these companies exploit their workers, or is this a hasty generalisation?
I know that assembling CD writing machines is quite complex, and an art, so the assembly workers are highly trained and paid well.
Also, you're justifying stealing from them because of that.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I know that assembling CD writing machines is quite complex, and an art, so the assembly workers are highly trained and paid well.
Also, you're justifying stealing from them because of that.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Solaris
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,318
- Reaction score
- 4
I'm not justifying music piracy.
I do however oppose any attempts to limit it.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, lol. Except the basis for Solaris' idiot-communism is the belief that essentially all workers are exploited.
"BIG CORPORATIONS EXPLOIT THE WORKERS BY PAYING THEM FAIR WAGES. I RESPECT THEM BY STEALING FROM THEM AND PAYING THEM NOTHING AT ALL."
What Solaris fails to understand is that people get paid in proportion to the work they do.
If twenty people work on a CD and sell it for $15, they can't all be paid $15 per CD.
That's utterly nonsensical. Every CD would cost over $300 to make, but only sell for $15.
And no one man has all the skills or time required to record, produce and distribute a mass-production CD on his own.
Absolutely retarded.
Even in communism, that money has to come from somewhere. Do you think that, under communism, goods just fall out of a product tree? A communist system feeds its people the same way: in accordance to what they are able to give. The system can't pay money it doesn't have.
In the real world, twenty people selling a CD for $15 would get $0.75 per CD. Assuming, for the purposes of simplicity they all did equal amounts of work. After selling ten thousand CDs, that's a huge profit each. And companies don't sell just one CD at a time. They sell dozens or hundreds by various bands. Oh, the poor exploited worker!
Chances are these folks get a cut of the radio broadcast rights and so on, from other aspects of the corporation.
If they were being exploited, they could sue or quit - but they don't because they're not!
They agreed to these wages by signing up in the first place!
So way to defend the weak, Solaris.
But wait, you were just bragging that limited filesharing actually makes money for the companies. And you paid 80 quid right to them!
So which is it?
Are you Robin Hood, or are you just talking dirty while taking it up the ass?
Worst communist ever.
"BIG CORPORATIONS EXPLOIT THE WORKERS BY PAYING THEM FAIR WAGES. I RESPECT THEM BY STEALING FROM THEM AND PAYING THEM NOTHING AT ALL."
What Solaris fails to understand is that people get paid in proportion to the work they do.
If twenty people work on a CD and sell it for $15, they can't all be paid $15 per CD.
That's utterly nonsensical. Every CD would cost over $300 to make, but only sell for $15.
And no one man has all the skills or time required to record, produce and distribute a mass-production CD on his own.
Absolutely retarded.
Even in communism, that money has to come from somewhere. Do you think that, under communism, goods just fall out of a product tree? A communist system feeds its people the same way: in accordance to what they are able to give. The system can't pay money it doesn't have.
In the real world, twenty people selling a CD for $15 would get $0.75 per CD. Assuming, for the purposes of simplicity they all did equal amounts of work. After selling ten thousand CDs, that's a huge profit each. And companies don't sell just one CD at a time. They sell dozens or hundreds by various bands. Oh, the poor exploited worker!
Chances are these folks get a cut of the radio broadcast rights and so on, from other aspects of the corporation.
If they were being exploited, they could sue or quit - but they don't because they're not!
They agreed to these wages by signing up in the first place!
So way to defend the weak, Solaris.
But wait, you were just bragging that limited filesharing actually makes money for the companies. And you paid 80 quid right to them!
So which is it?
Are you Robin Hood, or are you just talking dirty while taking it up the ass?
Worst communist ever.
kirovman
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 8,462
- Reaction score
- 0
No, don't you know?
Industry in the UK is stuck in a Dickensian timewarp, with malnutritioned children being sold into slavery in the streets, and working men doing chimney sweeping and mill work 30 hours a day. The women can only make ends meet by selling their bodies to Brunel, the evilest Industrialist of them all.
Industry in the UK is stuck in a Dickensian timewarp, with malnutritioned children being sold into slavery in the streets, and working men doing chimney sweeping and mill work 30 hours a day. The women can only make ends meet by selling their bodies to Brunel, the evilest Industrialist of them all.
Tagaziel
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 23
Ah, yes, socialism, the great, free system, where all citizens are happy and enjoy empty shelves in shops due to the great and just centrally planned economy, where freedom of thought is never opressed by the government funded secret police, which makes your fellow citizens disappear, where free press is allowed when it reprints government statements word-by-word, where all workers enjoy minimum wages and are exploited by the government, where all arts are allowed, provided they are socreal...
Solaris, get a ****ing grip and examine history.
Solaris, get a ****ing grip and examine history.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
"I first want to clarify something, sometimes you place [sic] in my quotes. What's that for?"
'Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error.
This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully or to highlight an error, often for the purpose of ridicule or irony or, otherwise, to quote accurately whilst maintaining the reputation of the person or organisation quoting its source.'
"I need to create massive demand for the profits of record corporations. How do record corporations recieve profits for their records? By creating demand for their music. Hence, the goal of my plan would be to do the opposite of what you said, it would be to decrease demand for their music, and I hold that the internet is an effective way of doing this, because it allows a larger amount of artists to be heard, hence the total audience gets to hear more muscians dispersing their demand (and thus the profits made for music) amoung many more muscisians [sic]."
We've already gone over this.
The internet already exists and record companies are still there, so your plan has obviously failed.
People can see breakdancing pokemon whenever they wish.
They choose not to because they aren't you.
At the same time, the only way to reduce demand for something is to replace it with something that the audience recognizes as "better". You can't simply reduce the demand by scrunching up your face and wishing real hard.
"In the short term, stealing music from record corporations may reduce their profits, but in the long term, as you pointed out, this will not work because the desire to steal ultimately comes when demand exceeds how willing you are to pay for for the product, hence the root of my plan would be reducing demand, not reducing the profits mades [sic] by stealing."
What? You just repeated my description of Supply and Demand in order to sound less stupid, and then added a stupid coda onto it. Clearly you don't understand what you are saying.
You can't spontaneously remove demand. That doesn't work. The only way to do so is to present people with a valid alternative. You tried that with your Breakdancing Pokemon, and it clearly did not work because Breakdancing Pokemon is not a valid alternative in the eyes of the public.
"So what your [sic] saying (or atleast [sic] insinuating) is, that the record corporations that spent millions of dollars trying to promote and advertise Britney had no role in getting people to like her. The people must have *gasp* magically found her music from the depths of nowhere and they must have came together and decided that they should collectively give their money to elevate her to her rightfully earned superstar status."
No, obviously not.
You know, trying to copy my writing style doesn't work if you don't have any intelligent points backing it up.
She was marketed, and people caught on.
Just like you are trying to market Breakdancing Pokemon on youtube. There is always promotion.
Show me a single band that isn't promoted through advertisement, and I will give you ten dollars.
Oh, wait, you can't! Because if you show me, then you'll be advertising them to me!
Again: you're identical except you fail. You're sad that nobody wants to see breakdancing pokemon and you're sad that you have no means of advertising them as effectively as media-powerhouse Spears.
"Jeff Fenster from Jive Records basically invested in what he thought would make money. Brintney [sic] was pushed on to people, not offered, and it was done primarily through advertising and promotional campaigns. Yes some people may like her songs, hell, I liked 'baby one more time' when it came out, but a person's choice to like britney and Max martins music, has been grossly manipulated by the amount of money invested in her by record corporations in order to make her famous."
Check this out: I am going to change key words in the above paragraph. See if you can spot the differences!
"Feendzy from the internets basically invested in what he thought should make money. Braekdansing Pokomons [sic] was pushed on to people, not offered, and it was done primarily through whining and nonsensical campaigns against common sense. Yes some people may like their antics (not me though, because Frendzy is retarded) but a person's choice to like Breakdancing Pokemon, has been grossly manipulated by the amount of idiot rambling and misplaced effort invested in them by Feendzy in order to make them famous."[/B]
Wait a minute! By trying to "equalize" hype through your stupid protest, you are equally guilty of artificially inflating demand for groups through advertisement!
The only difference, again, is that you aren't being paid and that you really suck at it!
"I think that pokemon breakdancing to have 150 clips is shockingly amazing, considering that pokemon breakdancing does not recieve thousands of hours of media coverage, gossip, and millions of dollars in advertising to promote themselves."
Problem: The "Pokemon Breakdancing" in question is a breakdancing star nicknamed "Pokemon" performing in the ticketed Nike Freestyle Summer 2005 'Urban Lifestyle Festival' promoted and sponsored by NIKE corporation.
OOOPS!
"We are talking about the audience. When the audience is exposed, continously to britney spears, every where they go, they are unable to pay attention to break dancing [sic] pokemon. Breakdancing pokemon have the modest courtesy of not screaming in the faces of their audiences with a million dollar megaphone."
First of all, that's pretty much exactly what happened with that Pokemon chap. he was paid and promoted with advertisements.
When was the last time you honestly saw a Britney Spears advertisement anywhere?
I live in the middle of downtown Toronto, one of the most heavily advertised areas in the nation, I frequently read music and entertainment review sites, visit record stores and I haven't seen such an ad since 2003.
But I guess she just keeps SCREAMING SCREAMING IN YOUR HEAD BUT THE VOICES JUST NEVER GO AWAY OH GOD GET THE VOICES OUT.
How are you immune from her prostitutional brainwashing ways!!!!
Oh wait, that's just a metaphor.
So, metaphorically, you're a liar because advertisements aren't that bad. They can't force people to not like things. That's stupid. There's no mutual exclusivity here.
It seems to me that, because Britney Spears is a woman who is more successful and popular than you, she is therefore an evil slut-whore.
(misogyny!)
While (non-breakdancing) Pokemon, however vastly marketed they are by Nintendo Corporation, are gender-neutral and therefore unthreatening.
"Oh god your [sic] making me laugh, No [sic] one likes low quality you tube [sic] shit because
the ideo [sic] views have reached 1.73 billion and the total time people spent watching YouTube since it started last year is 9,305 years. I guess everyone is grudgingly spending all their time watching low-quality Youtube shit that No-one [sic] likes.
The reason Youtube is not on DVD is because 45 terabytes dont fit on a DVD, and Youtube wouldnt be Youtube if it was on DVD.
Youtube is worthless? Is that why google is offering 1.6 billion for home videos of toddlers falling down is it?"
Youtube is popular because it is free.
No-one would pay to access it.
Google bought it because Google is one of the most successful advertising companies on Earth.
In other words, they bought it because it was marketable. Marketable, in this case, means "capable of attracting and maintaining an audience for profit".
Google, as an advertiser, has made deals with various record companies to keep their copyrighted music on Youtube as a promotional tool for their brands.
Youtube is now one of the world's largest and most popular advertising services for the music industry.
Hence why Youtube holds 8500 videos of Britney Spears.
Wait, the things you are praising Youtube for are identical to the things you loathe about that damn prostitute!
Could it be because Youtube is genderless and therefore not a pathetic whore female slut bitch? (misogyny!)
"No my final goal is to say, people should be allowed to see what they want to see, not the artistic prostitues that are pushed into their faces by huge record Pimps. Youtube and music sharing on the internet is a means by which an audience can really choose what they want to listen to or watch, instead of them being limited to the top forty songs that are selected for them to watch by record corporations on MTV."
So much for that plan.
Youtube, a subsidiary of Google Advertising Corporation, will save us from corporate advertisements!
Problem: Youtube generally excludes copyrighted material that hasn't paid to be there.
I guess you'll just have to kill prostitutes the old-fashioned way.
"No [stealing from people you hate is okay] that's not my message, But [sic] if I said something to make you think that then I apologize for not clarifying it."
"This is the point I wanted to make. I hate aritist [sic] that make millions out of prostituting their art. I hate them because their art is (usually) shit. [...] my plan is to steal [their] profits."
"Sorry, by selfish reason I meant greed, didn't make it very clear there for you. [...] You honestly consider a busker to be as equally greedy as a record corporation because they both refuse to be stolen from? Either you don't understand what greed means or you are deluded.
let me try and make this simple for you.
Greed is BAD. By definition.
Self-Interest is not always neccesarily bad, it can be bad for others...sometimes."
Self-interest is bad for me if you refuse to give me your credit card number.
I could be made very happy with that money!
Why do you refuse to give it to me, you greedy son of a bitch?!
"greed–noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions."
You desire wealth and possessions, obviously, since you refuse to give them to me.
Greed isn't a BAD desire by definition, it's a desire that is excessive.
So how do you define "excessive"? (I define it as refusing to give me your credit card number, you greedy son of a bitch.)
-Man (not a woman) on the street trades music for money: not excessive.
-Britney Spears (a woman) trades music for money: whore slut!
By the REAL definition that you didn't invent out of your ass, greed isn't about how much money you have.
It's about how ruthless you are in trying to obtain it.
Nothing Britney Spears does in gaining profit is particularily immoral. She doesn't lie, steal or anything like that. She simply advertises.
And since you love Youtube (the internet's largest viral marketing tool), you love the power advertisement has in taking nobodies like Britney and turning them into stars.
"Hence, busker making a few bucks at the street corner, not bad, but merely self interested, doing what he can to look after himself. Record Corporations Investing [sic] in stupid and generic music by appealing to the sexual insecurities of little girls in order to reap the maximum amount of profits? a [sic] little self interested? or [sic] would you say mostly Greedy [sic]?"
So advertising is evil, unless you're poor?
But then what happens when the advertising works makes the poor guy rich?
Does he suddenly become evil?
Or are you just horribly confused / misogynist?
I think I know the answer!
And what's with your belief that everyone is fraught with "sexual insecurities" exploited by "prostitutes".
Holy autobiographical projection, Batman!
"If we are to continue this discussion, you have to clearly deliniate [sic] what your idea of greed is, so that we can come to an agreement, otherwise we aren't going to get anywhere."
Simple: I follow the definition found in the dictionary, which calls it, specifically, desire for material gain that is beyond the usual levels.
What is the usual level of desire for material gain?
Usually, people enjoy getting as much material gain as they can, without compromising any laws or personal moral standards.
Therefore, greed is when the person chooses crime or amoral tactics to obtain wealth.
Britney Spears breaks no laws and she does nothing immoral (unless you're Feendzy and believe "running a successful business" and "pretty much anything to do with female sexuality" are immoral).
'Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error.
This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully or to highlight an error, often for the purpose of ridicule or irony or, otherwise, to quote accurately whilst maintaining the reputation of the person or organisation quoting its source.'
"I need to create massive demand for the profits of record corporations. How do record corporations recieve profits for their records? By creating demand for their music. Hence, the goal of my plan would be to do the opposite of what you said, it would be to decrease demand for their music, and I hold that the internet is an effective way of doing this, because it allows a larger amount of artists to be heard, hence the total audience gets to hear more muscians dispersing their demand (and thus the profits made for music) amoung many more muscisians [sic]."
We've already gone over this.
The internet already exists and record companies are still there, so your plan has obviously failed.
People can see breakdancing pokemon whenever they wish.
They choose not to because they aren't you.
At the same time, the only way to reduce demand for something is to replace it with something that the audience recognizes as "better". You can't simply reduce the demand by scrunching up your face and wishing real hard.
"In the short term, stealing music from record corporations may reduce their profits, but in the long term, as you pointed out, this will not work because the desire to steal ultimately comes when demand exceeds how willing you are to pay for for the product, hence the root of my plan would be reducing demand, not reducing the profits mades [sic] by stealing."
What? You just repeated my description of Supply and Demand in order to sound less stupid, and then added a stupid coda onto it. Clearly you don't understand what you are saying.
You can't spontaneously remove demand. That doesn't work. The only way to do so is to present people with a valid alternative. You tried that with your Breakdancing Pokemon, and it clearly did not work because Breakdancing Pokemon is not a valid alternative in the eyes of the public.
"So what your [sic] saying (or atleast [sic] insinuating) is, that the record corporations that spent millions of dollars trying to promote and advertise Britney had no role in getting people to like her. The people must have *gasp* magically found her music from the depths of nowhere and they must have came together and decided that they should collectively give their money to elevate her to her rightfully earned superstar status."
No, obviously not.
You know, trying to copy my writing style doesn't work if you don't have any intelligent points backing it up.
She was marketed, and people caught on.
Just like you are trying to market Breakdancing Pokemon on youtube. There is always promotion.
Show me a single band that isn't promoted through advertisement, and I will give you ten dollars.
Oh, wait, you can't! Because if you show me, then you'll be advertising them to me!
Again: you're identical except you fail. You're sad that nobody wants to see breakdancing pokemon and you're sad that you have no means of advertising them as effectively as media-powerhouse Spears.
"Jeff Fenster from Jive Records basically invested in what he thought would make money. Brintney [sic] was pushed on to people, not offered, and it was done primarily through advertising and promotional campaigns. Yes some people may like her songs, hell, I liked 'baby one more time' when it came out, but a person's choice to like britney and Max martins music, has been grossly manipulated by the amount of money invested in her by record corporations in order to make her famous."
Check this out: I am going to change key words in the above paragraph. See if you can spot the differences!
"Feendzy from the internets basically invested in what he thought should make money. Braekdansing Pokomons [sic] was pushed on to people, not offered, and it was done primarily through whining and nonsensical campaigns against common sense. Yes some people may like their antics (not me though, because Frendzy is retarded) but a person's choice to like Breakdancing Pokemon, has been grossly manipulated by the amount of idiot rambling and misplaced effort invested in them by Feendzy in order to make them famous."[/B]
Wait a minute! By trying to "equalize" hype through your stupid protest, you are equally guilty of artificially inflating demand for groups through advertisement!
The only difference, again, is that you aren't being paid and that you really suck at it!
"I think that pokemon breakdancing to have 150 clips is shockingly amazing, considering that pokemon breakdancing does not recieve thousands of hours of media coverage, gossip, and millions of dollars in advertising to promote themselves."
Problem: The "Pokemon Breakdancing" in question is a breakdancing star nicknamed "Pokemon" performing in the ticketed Nike Freestyle Summer 2005 'Urban Lifestyle Festival' promoted and sponsored by NIKE corporation.
OOOPS!
"We are talking about the audience. When the audience is exposed, continously to britney spears, every where they go, they are unable to pay attention to break dancing [sic] pokemon. Breakdancing pokemon have the modest courtesy of not screaming in the faces of their audiences with a million dollar megaphone."
First of all, that's pretty much exactly what happened with that Pokemon chap. he was paid and promoted with advertisements.
When was the last time you honestly saw a Britney Spears advertisement anywhere?
I live in the middle of downtown Toronto, one of the most heavily advertised areas in the nation, I frequently read music and entertainment review sites, visit record stores and I haven't seen such an ad since 2003.
But I guess she just keeps SCREAMING SCREAMING IN YOUR HEAD BUT THE VOICES JUST NEVER GO AWAY OH GOD GET THE VOICES OUT.
How are you immune from her prostitutional brainwashing ways!!!!
Oh wait, that's just a metaphor.
So, metaphorically, you're a liar because advertisements aren't that bad. They can't force people to not like things. That's stupid. There's no mutual exclusivity here.
It seems to me that, because Britney Spears is a woman who is more successful and popular than you, she is therefore an evil slut-whore.
(misogyny!)
While (non-breakdancing) Pokemon, however vastly marketed they are by Nintendo Corporation, are gender-neutral and therefore unthreatening.
"Oh god your [sic] making me laugh, No [sic] one likes low quality you tube [sic] shit because
the ideo [sic] views have reached 1.73 billion and the total time people spent watching YouTube since it started last year is 9,305 years. I guess everyone is grudgingly spending all their time watching low-quality Youtube shit that No-one [sic] likes.
The reason Youtube is not on DVD is because 45 terabytes dont fit on a DVD, and Youtube wouldnt be Youtube if it was on DVD.
Youtube is worthless? Is that why google is offering 1.6 billion for home videos of toddlers falling down is it?"
Youtube is popular because it is free.
No-one would pay to access it.
Google bought it because Google is one of the most successful advertising companies on Earth.
In other words, they bought it because it was marketable. Marketable, in this case, means "capable of attracting and maintaining an audience for profit".
Google, as an advertiser, has made deals with various record companies to keep their copyrighted music on Youtube as a promotional tool for their brands.
Youtube is now one of the world's largest and most popular advertising services for the music industry.
Hence why Youtube holds 8500 videos of Britney Spears.
Wait, the things you are praising Youtube for are identical to the things you loathe about that damn prostitute!
Could it be because Youtube is genderless and therefore not a pathetic whore female slut bitch? (misogyny!)
"No my final goal is to say, people should be allowed to see what they want to see, not the artistic prostitues that are pushed into their faces by huge record Pimps. Youtube and music sharing on the internet is a means by which an audience can really choose what they want to listen to or watch, instead of them being limited to the top forty songs that are selected for them to watch by record corporations on MTV."
So much for that plan.
Youtube, a subsidiary of Google Advertising Corporation, will save us from corporate advertisements!
Problem: Youtube generally excludes copyrighted material that hasn't paid to be there.
I guess you'll just have to kill prostitutes the old-fashioned way.
"No [stealing from people you hate is okay] that's not my message, But [sic] if I said something to make you think that then I apologize for not clarifying it."
"This is the point I wanted to make. I hate aritist [sic] that make millions out of prostituting their art. I hate them because their art is (usually) shit. [...] my plan is to steal [their] profits."
"Sorry, by selfish reason I meant greed, didn't make it very clear there for you. [...] You honestly consider a busker to be as equally greedy as a record corporation because they both refuse to be stolen from? Either you don't understand what greed means or you are deluded.
let me try and make this simple for you.
Greed is BAD. By definition.
Self-Interest is not always neccesarily bad, it can be bad for others...sometimes."
Self-interest is bad for me if you refuse to give me your credit card number.
I could be made very happy with that money!
Why do you refuse to give it to me, you greedy son of a bitch?!
"greed–noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions."
You desire wealth and possessions, obviously, since you refuse to give them to me.
Greed isn't a BAD desire by definition, it's a desire that is excessive.
So how do you define "excessive"? (I define it as refusing to give me your credit card number, you greedy son of a bitch.)
-Man (not a woman) on the street trades music for money: not excessive.
-Britney Spears (a woman) trades music for money: whore slut!
By the REAL definition that you didn't invent out of your ass, greed isn't about how much money you have.
It's about how ruthless you are in trying to obtain it.
Nothing Britney Spears does in gaining profit is particularily immoral. She doesn't lie, steal or anything like that. She simply advertises.
And since you love Youtube (the internet's largest viral marketing tool), you love the power advertisement has in taking nobodies like Britney and turning them into stars.
"Hence, busker making a few bucks at the street corner, not bad, but merely self interested, doing what he can to look after himself. Record Corporations Investing [sic] in stupid and generic music by appealing to the sexual insecurities of little girls in order to reap the maximum amount of profits? a [sic] little self interested? or [sic] would you say mostly Greedy [sic]?"
So advertising is evil, unless you're poor?
But then what happens when the advertising works makes the poor guy rich?
Does he suddenly become evil?
Or are you just horribly confused / misogynist?
I think I know the answer!
And what's with your belief that everyone is fraught with "sexual insecurities" exploited by "prostitutes".
Holy autobiographical projection, Batman!
"If we are to continue this discussion, you have to clearly deliniate [sic] what your idea of greed is, so that we can come to an agreement, otherwise we aren't going to get anywhere."
Simple: I follow the definition found in the dictionary, which calls it, specifically, desire for material gain that is beyond the usual levels.
What is the usual level of desire for material gain?
Usually, people enjoy getting as much material gain as they can, without compromising any laws or personal moral standards.
Therefore, greed is when the person chooses crime or amoral tactics to obtain wealth.
Britney Spears breaks no laws and she does nothing immoral (unless you're Feendzy and believe "running a successful business" and "pretty much anything to do with female sexuality" are immoral).
[RnL]Stefan
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 0
short and simple: it should be illegal...and infact it is under certain, pretty much everytime given, circumstances.
maybe that's been brought up already and i happen did not stumble over it already but... my 2 cents
some people here say: it's ok to download/steal songs, movies and maybe games. they justify that by saying something like: "i download 3-4 albums and buy one per months, so everyone gets their share. also, i'd NEVER pay for the music i download so no is being harmed" [cuz it's not worth it(?)].
that's just wrong, too. why?
first: you certainly don't buy the music from the same label/ artist you downloaded a few days ago, as you have that music already. hence the money you spend will most likely go into another artists pocket. after passing the producer of course, i know, i know.
second: you listen to music, you have to pay for it. it's simple, you either LISTEN to it and then it just IS worth it and you should pay for it. OR if it's NOT worth it to be paid, why do you listen to it then? if you ever enjoy listening to a song for 2-3 times, you should pay for it because it obviously was worth being listened to 2-3 times. music i don't pay for is worth to be heard on the radio or in the best case, i don't (have to) listen to it.
i fail to understand how people can say: "i don't have the money to buy music, so i download it." those people should understand that music is not something essential for living but part of a certain way of live, it's a luxury article. you either can afford it, or you can't and then you don't. not being able to pay for it (cuz you maybe want to party 8 days a month and spend 200 bucks on alcohol) doesn't make it right, just because you can.
maybe that's been brought up already and i happen did not stumble over it already but... my 2 cents
some people here say: it's ok to download/steal songs, movies and maybe games. they justify that by saying something like: "i download 3-4 albums and buy one per months, so everyone gets their share. also, i'd NEVER pay for the music i download so no is being harmed" [cuz it's not worth it(?)].
that's just wrong, too. why?
first: you certainly don't buy the music from the same label/ artist you downloaded a few days ago, as you have that music already. hence the money you spend will most likely go into another artists pocket. after passing the producer of course, i know, i know.
second: you listen to music, you have to pay for it. it's simple, you either LISTEN to it and then it just IS worth it and you should pay for it. OR if it's NOT worth it to be paid, why do you listen to it then? if you ever enjoy listening to a song for 2-3 times, you should pay for it because it obviously was worth being listened to 2-3 times. music i don't pay for is worth to be heard on the radio or in the best case, i don't (have to) listen to it.
i fail to understand how people can say: "i don't have the money to buy music, so i download it." those people should understand that music is not something essential for living but part of a certain way of live, it's a luxury article. you either can afford it, or you can't and then you don't. not being able to pay for it (cuz you maybe want to party 8 days a month and spend 200 bucks on alcohol) doesn't make it right, just because you can.
Angry Lawyer
Newbie
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 6,868
- Reaction score
- 0
-Angry Lawyer
Angry Lawyer
Newbie
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 6,868
- Reaction score
- 0
D: D: D:
-Angry Lawyer
-Angry Lawyer
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Technically, if Mechagodzilla became God, he would have to kill himself, in order to support atheism.
If I became a god, I would provide ample evidence proving myself.
Once something is proven, it is science and not religion.
Thus, all religions on Earth would be more-or-less forced to end, because facts would win.
And you better believe that anyone messing with logic would get smote.
You hear that Feendzy, Clarky and the rest?
Smote.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Bingo. For all Jehovah's omnipotence, he can't even create the basic proof that he's real.
Obviously it's in his and our best interests to do so.
Obviously it's in his and our best interests to do so.
Llama
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,148
- Reaction score
- 0
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
Hm, i know this is somewhat necro, but i voted "yes".
point #1 Software piracy could only be legal if the system was completely abolished (in a communist or anarchist revolution ? whatever, it just doesn't work within capitalism)
point #2 Solaris is an asshole (i feel this has been documented thorougly in the posts before this one).
point #3 DRM is a horribly flawed concept. It fails in interoperability, it fails in cryptography, and it fails by being a massive reducing element in our rights.
point #4 Piracy however has introduced me to so much music that could possibly take me years, or not even achieve anything, without it. Even Mecha admits he downloads, then erases music. It's impossible for me to think of not being able to do that right now, even supporting the illegality of piracy, i think that if even on the band's website or corporation, music should be listenable, if not in its whole, then at least very long samples. It's ridiculous to consider that people will accept Trusted Computers that shall block all and every attempt at anything illegal. Copyright violation is little more than someone else borrowing me a digital copy of his newly bought CD. IF it wasn't for piracy, i probably *wouldn't* have bought Kid A, or be considering to buy Sigur Ros right now. It's ridiculous to think that i would have invested more money in the usic industry, because the opposite is true. If we live in a world where borrowing (even if it IS in massive, disproportional quantities) is forbidden, even when it's temporary (and as i've said, DRM IS NOT THE ANSWER, let people think for themselves, don't ****ing block it to 7 PCs and to your own devices) i truly don't think i want to live in that world. How that copes with my first statement, i don't know...
point #1 Software piracy could only be legal if the system was completely abolished (in a communist or anarchist revolution ? whatever, it just doesn't work within capitalism)
point #2 Solaris is an asshole (i feel this has been documented thorougly in the posts before this one).
point #3 DRM is a horribly flawed concept. It fails in interoperability, it fails in cryptography, and it fails by being a massive reducing element in our rights.
point #4 Piracy however has introduced me to so much music that could possibly take me years, or not even achieve anything, without it. Even Mecha admits he downloads, then erases music. It's impossible for me to think of not being able to do that right now, even supporting the illegality of piracy, i think that if even on the band's website or corporation, music should be listenable, if not in its whole, then at least very long samples. It's ridiculous to consider that people will accept Trusted Computers that shall block all and every attempt at anything illegal. Copyright violation is little more than someone else borrowing me a digital copy of his newly bought CD. IF it wasn't for piracy, i probably *wouldn't* have bought Kid A, or be considering to buy Sigur Ros right now. It's ridiculous to think that i would have invested more money in the usic industry, because the opposite is true. If we live in a world where borrowing (even if it IS in massive, disproportional quantities) is forbidden, even when it's temporary (and as i've said, DRM IS NOT THE ANSWER, let people think for themselves, don't ****ing block it to 7 PCs and to your own devices) i truly don't think i want to live in that world. How that copes with my first statement, i don't know...
Angry Lawyer
Newbie
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 6,868
- Reaction score
- 0
Why am I an asswhole.
I've never done anything mean to anybody here yet you all hate me
You're an asshalf.
-Angry Lawyer
[RnL]Stefan
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 0
What's wrong with that. it stops people from having music on 100ths of their friends pcs. and you are nowhere near having 7 pcs, so lets consider you have 2 pcs, a laptop and your gfs pc, that's 4 out of 5 (apple) or 7...whereever that number is from.
i bet in the next years you'll not get near 7(?) registered pcs for your music.
JNightshade
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 0
Still. If you buy it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it (short of uploading it to Limewire or something).
Thadius Dean
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 884
- Reaction score
- 0
For me, stealing music is a commensal relationship. I wouldn't purchase any of the music I download (I have no money) but piracy allows me to still enjoy it. Hell, I'm thinking about buying some T-shirts of some bands I particularly like.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,038
- Reaction score
- 26
Who knows. They might make a killing from those t-shirts.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
For the price of an average band t-shirt, you could buy up to three actual albums.
For someone with no money, you certainly seem able to use the internet and buy expensive clothes.
Also,"commensal" is a synonym for "parasitic".
That's not exactly the sort of thing you brag about.
If you aren't paying, then you are getting something you do not deserve. That's that whole rape problem that Frendzy has too.
It's not about the music or the information. It's about the human right to privacy, and the consent required to surpass that.
What you are doing is exactly the same as breaking into a concert or movie theatre.
Or even hiding in the trunk of someone's car to get a free trip somewhere.
You wouldn't do any of those things in reality, obviously, but the internet lets you act like a "commensal" ass with so much ease and comfort, doesn't it?
For someone with no money, you certainly seem able to use the internet and buy expensive clothes.
Also,"commensal" is a synonym for "parasitic".
That's not exactly the sort of thing you brag about.
If you aren't paying, then you are getting something you do not deserve. That's that whole rape problem that Frendzy has too.
It's not about the music or the information. It's about the human right to privacy, and the consent required to surpass that.
What you are doing is exactly the same as breaking into a concert or movie theatre.
Or even hiding in the trunk of someone's car to get a free trip somewhere.
You wouldn't do any of those things in reality, obviously, but the internet lets you act like a "commensal" ass with so much ease and comfort, doesn't it?
brink's
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 0
Exactly:thumbs:
Similar threads
