AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Please Don't Bite My Head Off......But
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Please Don't Bite My Head Off......But - Page 2

post #41 of 94
11/5/07 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blingem View Post

Digital theft is still theft.

At least you agree on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blingem View Post

However, are all people who steal bad people?

Not necessarily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blingem View Post

but if/when some poor college kid or 3rd world mud-hut hopeful downloads leopard, should they really burn in hell?

That would be somewhat excessive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blingem View Post

I suck at photoshop, and basically use it to tool around and make things color/black & white. It costs almost $1000, so I would never comprehensibly buy it.

Why don't you buy something much cheaper then? Like Graphic Converter that costs $35?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #42 of 94
11/5/07 at 4:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

What I meant was a view of morality whereby an action can be necessarily wrong irrespective of circumstance. So things considered wrong would always be wrong, in any situation - a starving child who steals food to survive would still be wrong - because the idea of theft is viewed by some unshakeable standard. I guess the "philosopic" term for this is moral absolutism.

It's not entirely clear to me where universalism stops and absolutism starts, but I would agree that absolutism isn't palatable. The morality of a situation can depend on the means available to those involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

never heard of playing the devil's advocate?

Of course. It is a good game to play. But when I do it I'm careful not to strictly imply my actual position. I.e., I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #43 of 94
11/5/07 at 5:12am
My actions are irrelevant to this discussion. Noone is here to defend themselves. As an aside, the book catch-22 has an insightful perspective on moral absolutism (mot necessarily relevant to internet piracy - but what the hell)
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 94
11/5/07 at 5:27am
My take:

I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.

I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 94
11/5/07 at 5:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.

lol, you make it sound like someone creeping into cupertino at night with a crowbar and a balaclava, and obtaining the blueprints for leopard, then removing or corrupting all the code off their computers so that you could hold it to ransom. Thats what "stealing leopard" would amount to imho.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 94
11/5/07 at 5:36am
Sh*t, I forgot my crowbar....
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 94
11/5/07 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

not really. downloading is transferring information or data. Stealing a boxed dvd from a shop is a criminal offence. Certainly different, both legally and ethically. Also its not really the same as someone stealing from you because your version of stealing implies stealing a personal effect, which can hardly be compared to stealing an operating system from a corporation.

Also its really not that difficult to do, and you don't have to burn a DL dvd.

Having said that, I can say that I got my copy off the internet and it works perfectly. It didn't take 3 days to download either (more like an hour and a half), and I didn't have to burn a DL dvd (nor edit down the data to fit it on a SL dvd). However if you want advice on doing I won't be the person to give it. If you want to pirate software thats your lookout, and you can easily obtain information for how to go about it with a google search or two.

Chav!
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

My take:

I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.

I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.

Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #49 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?

Is that a serious question?

It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Is that a serious question?

It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?

You made the statement "There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission."

Kind of implying that "things" are either physical or ideas. A movie is not physical, a song is not physical, an operating system is not physical.

All those things can be classed as intellectual property. Do you not agree?

And if you do not agree with the concept of intellectual property, that implies the creators of said intellectual property have no rights. How do the creators of the items above get paid for their work if they have no right to sell them?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #51 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

How do the creators of the items above get paid for their work if they have no right to sell them?

No right to sell?

They'd make money the same way they did before corporations pushed through the current body of law.

Artists, architects, musicians, and researchers all existed prior to copyright law.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

No right to sell?

They'd make money the same way they did before corporations pushed through the current body of law.

Artists, architects, musicians, and researchers all existed prior to copyright law.

I note you dodged the question.

Are movies, song and OSes intellectual property?

If you disagree with the notion of intellectual property, doesn't that imply these things should be freely distributable without recompense to the original creators?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #53 of 94
11/5/07 at 7:50am
You're asking ludicrous questions like: is a song considered IP?

Here's something to contemplate...
Economies don't require governmental enforcement of idea-monopolies.

Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

You're asking ludicrous questions like: is a song considered IP?

Here's something to contemplate...
Economies don't require governmental enforcement of idea-monopolies.

Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.

And still you refuse to answer the simple questions I ask.

Is a song IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to songs? Is is acceptable to freely distribute original recordings of songs against the wishes of the artist, musicians, recording engineers, producers, managers, & marketing employees involved in its creation and promotion?

Is a movie IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to movies?

Is an OS IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to OSes?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #55 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.

Yes and they barely eked out a living.

While musicians may be overpaid now, it's unquestionable that they are much better compensated today than in the past.

ps dfiler, Do you feel current IP laws too heavily favor the content creators over the public interests, or are you simply against the concept of IP?
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:25am
Actually, the majority of musicians still barely get by. In regards to the argument, for me it's simple.
There are laws out there, and we're expected to abide by them. End of story. Heck, I'm 18. It's no big deal for me, people who create such marvelous things deserve my respect.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:29am
laws are frequently stupid. I for one consider my own judgement to be a good enough method of figuring out moral dilemnas - thats not what the legal system is for. The legal system exists to protect people, not to punish them, or provide them with a system of ethics.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

...
While musicians may be overpaid now, it's unquestionable that they are much better compensated today than in the past.

ps dfiler, Do you feel current IP laws too heavily favor the content creators over the public interests, or are you simply against the concept of IP?

I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.

You used to be able to make a living as a professional musician. Bands and orchestras would compete with each other to get the best musicians. Even small cities had a healthy market for talented musicians. Times have changed though. You'll find very few musicians actually supporting themselves as performance artists or through record sales. Granted, this has always been somewhat the case.

Only in rare instances do musicians actually make money from selling their so called intellectual "property". The top few acts make money back on album sales. Most smaller acts actually lose money in the process of selling their albums. If you want to make money as a musician, the only realistic way to do it is through public performances.

Intellectual "property" laws are enriching media distribution empires, not the original artists. IP laws are pretty much here entirely at the behest and lobbying of corporations.


But I must thank you for noticing the intricacies of my rant. I am not entirely against copy restrictions. However, I feel that the current legal climate is doing a disservice to both consumers and creative people. So I guess the rant was two faceted. The term intellectual "property" is biased in and of itself. But also, that the current copyright laws are unjust.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 94
11/5/07 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.

Motzart and Beethoven, the 50 cent and Kanye West of their day, never achieved the financial success that popular musicians of today achieve. I'm sure the average musician today stuggles to make a living but the successful musicians and entertainers of today live a life that rivals royalty of yesteryear.

Yes I think IP laws could balance public interests against creators interests better, but IP laws are essential IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 94
11/5/07 at 9:38am
mozart and beethoven the 50 cent and kanye west of their day? based on what? That is a stupid comparison, and therefore can only lead to stupid conclusions. I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you believe that mozart and beethoven were the 50 cent and kanye west of their day.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 94
11/5/07 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

mozart and beethoven the 50 cent and kanye west of their day? based on what? That is a stupid comparison, and therefore can only lead to stupid conclusions. I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you believe that mozart and beethoven were the 50 cent and kanye west of their day.

If you don't understand the analogy, you're not trying.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 94
11/5/07 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

If you don't understand the analogy, your not trying.

You made a stupid analogy.. "Understanding" has nothing to do with it. What you are failing to understand is that your comparison is bad and that therefore your conclusions are bad.

On what basis do you compare beethoven or mozart to 50 cent or kanye west as opposed to any other contemporary musician? Wait I think I see the answer - you're either ignorant regarding music, or you havn't really thought about it.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 94
11/5/07 at 9:56am
I enjoyed the comparison.
And maybe you should debate respectfully.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:11am
Not to be an asshole but, why does whether or not you enjoy the comparison have any relevance to the argument. I enjoy jokes but I wouldn't use one as the premise for an ideology if it was nonsensical!
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

My take:

I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.

I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.

Why is it when I read this I immediately thought of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

You used to be able to make a living as a professional musician.
Bands and orchestras would compete with each other to get the best musicians. Even small cities had a healthy market for talented musicians. Times have changed though.

You mean like...before radio and the phonograph?
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:28am
When I said I enjoyed that, I meant I found it humorous, and I thought it was a decent comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:42am
And what I mean by decent, is when people think of mozart and beethoven, they think of them sort of hand in hand, in that they go together. And it's the same (for me and others I've talked to) with 50 Cent and Kanye.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 94
11/5/07 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishyesque View Post

When I said I enjoyed that, I meant I found it humorous, and I thought it was a decent comparison.

OK, I'll demonstrate why it is a bad comparison!
Because there is no evidence or explanation for the notion that classical composers are the equivalent of contemporary rap stars. On the contrary I'd say they have completely different audiences. Also, they are very different industries. The rap industry is primarily about recorded music, whereas classical composers were auteurs who created manuscripts for performance by orchestra.

On top of that there is the problem of context. He assumes that economic conditions and social hierarchies in the 18th century are analogous to those of today!

Just as an example I'll compare beethoven and mozart to struggling musicians X and Y - who are geniuses but make very little money from their trade today. I'm certain that many such musicians exist in contemporary society, and I have no less reason to draw a comparison between them and beethoven than to draw a comparison between 50 cent and beethoven.

In other words, one comparison leads to one conclusion and another comparison can lead to a totally different conclusion. Given that his comparison has no rational basis, I'm therefore forced to disregard his conclusion!
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 94
11/5/07 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

OK, I'll demonstrate why it is a bad comparison!
Because there is no evidence or explanation for the notion that classical composers are the equivalent of contemporary rap stars. On the contrary I'd say they have completely different audiences. Also, they are very different industries. The rap industry is primarily about recorded music, whereas classical composers were auteurs who created manuscripts for performance by orchestra.

On top of that there is the problem of context. He assumes that economic conditions and social hierarchies in the 18th century are analogous to those of today!

Just as an example I'll compare beethoven and mozart to struggling musicians X and Y - who are geniuses but make very little money from their trade today. I'm certain that many such musicians exist in contemporary society, and I have no less reason to draw a comparison between them and beethoven than to draw a comparison between 50 cent and beethoven.

In other words, one comparison leads to one conclusion and another comparison can lead to a totally different conclusion. Given that his comparison has no rational basis, I'm therefore forced to disregard his conclusion!

Ok Arch I'll grant that the analogy may not be the best. If I had the time and inclination to look up the popularity and income of Motzart and Beethovenand compare it to 50 cent and Kanye West I might be able to support my position better. Do you feel better now?

But let's not forget who had the stupid ass position that's indefensible. Yeah, that would be you.

See this happens a lot on the forums. Someone picks a ill thought out position and decides to stick with it well past the point that any reasonable person would. Then they get defensive and start throwing out phrases like "patronizing" and jumping all over a silly analogy that has little to do with the original topic of debate.

Bottom line: Your original position that 'it's not stealing to download Leopard and not pay for it' is stupid. Mr. H called you on it and so have I. And whether you agree or like it, you'll depend upon IP laws to protect your rights one day if you really are going to be an architect.

I think dfiler may have an interesting position that would make for good debate. You don't.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 94
11/5/07 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

OK, I'll demonstrate why it is a bad comparison!
Because there is no evidence or explanation for the notion that classical composers are the equivalent of contemporary rap stars.

Because the diffferences between a wealthy sponsor like Prince Karl Lichnowsky or Archduke Rudolph and a wealthy sponsor like Interscope/UMG are exactly what?

In that respect I think backtomac is incorrect. As wealthy as super stars are, they are less wealthy than their patrons (the music studios) and the heads of the studios. Now the most popular composers are kinda bad examples (like Mozart and Beethoven) as they ended up broke at the end of the day. But then so do a good number of superstars...

The similarities is that "popular" music is brokered by the elite. It used to be royal patrons. Now its "royal" music studios. In any case, in any age, you typically can find musical super stars enjoying a much higher than average lifestyle. These are not always the most talented of the generation or the best remembered. But being a court musician for an emperor is a pretty good deal if you can get the work much less royal composer or some other plum slot.

Whether 50 cent is the Mozart of our age can only be determined by history in the future. I'm going to guess...Not.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 94
11/5/07 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Because the diffferences between a wealthy sponsor like Prince Karl Lichnowsky or Archduke Rudolph and a wealthy sponsor like Interscope/UMG are exactly what?

In that respect I think backtomac is incorrect. As wealthy as super stars are, they are less wealthy than their patrons (the music studios) and the heads of the studios. Now the most popular composers are kinda bad examples (like Mozart and Beethoven) as they ended up broke at the end of the day. But then so do a good number of superstars...

The similarities is that "popular" music is brokered by the elite. It used to be royal patrons. Now its "royal" music studios. In any case, in any age, you typically can find musical super stars enjoying a much higher than average lifestyle. These are not always the most talented of the generation or the best remembered. But being a court musician for an emperor is a pretty good deal if you can get the work much less royal composer or some other plum slot.

Whether 50 cent is the Mozart of our age can only be determined by history in the future. I'm going to guess...Not.

I think people are misinterpreting a simple analogy.

dfiler asserted that musicians today are no better paid than musicians of the past. I chose the comparison of motzart and beethoven(quite popular in their day) to 50 cent and Kanye West(quite popular today) to back up my claim that popular and successful musicians of today are better compensated today than in the past. That's all. The average musician may not be any better off.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 94
11/5/07 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think people are misinterpreting a simple analogy.

dfiler asserted that musicians today are no better paid than musicians of the past. I chose the comparison of motzart and beethoven(quite popular in their day) to 50 cent and Kanye West(quite popular today) to back up my claim that popular and successful musicians of today are better compensated today than in the past. That's all. The average musician may not be any better off.

And I disagree. At the height of their money Mozart and Beethoven were doing probably about as well as 50 cent and Kanye West are today relative to the general populace and the elite. That's just an off the cuff impression but its equally backed up by proof as your assertion to the contrary.

Mozart was drawing 800 florins a year essentially just to hang around Vienna and compose dances once a year. Of course his lifestyle cost a heck of a lot more than that which is how he ended up in debt in the first place. Kinda like how Britney Spears makes $750K/month and blows it all without saving any.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 94
11/5/07 at 2:23pm
I just thought the comparison was good because, when I think of Kanye, I think of 50 Cent. Same goes for Mozart and Beethoven.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 94
11/5/07 at 3:33pm
Vinea,

Did some research. 50 cent made 32 million last year. That's a lot of coin. Still not sure how much 800 florians would compute in income today though.

Interesting I came across this article at Ars, that discusses how Mark Twain thought about copy right issues and how he tryed to protect his IP.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 94
11/5/07 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

And I disagree.

Fair enough. I really don't have anything to dispute your assertion. I don't know how much 800 florins would compute to income today. I'll google and see what I can come up with.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 94
11/7/07 at 6:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

never heard of playing the devil's advocate?

You're either a thief, or a liar, or perhaps a lying thief. And you're quite delusional if you think downloading isn't theft, and Apple employs a host of lawyers who can prove it (and I'd love to see that story in AI).

While I wish you no personal harm for your irresponsible attitudes, I do hope that someday someone -- perhaps a similarly minded co-worker -- pirates your work, benefits from the act, and then calmly states that they don't believe you had any legal or moral right to protest it because of the backdoor method they used acquire it.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 94
11/7/07 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent View Post

not really. downloading is transferring information or data. Stealing a boxed dvd from a shop is a criminal offence. Certainly different, both legally and ethically. Also its not really the same as someone stealing from you because your version of stealing implies stealing a personal effect, which can hardly be compared to stealing an operating system from a corporation.

Also its really not that difficult to do, and you don't have to burn a DL dvd.

Having said that, I can say that I got my copy off the internet and it works perfectly. It didn't take 3 days to download either (more like an hour and a half), and I didn't have to burn a DL dvd (nor edit down the data to fit it on a SL dvd). However if you want advice on doing I won't be the person to give it. If you want to pirate software thats your lookout, and you can easily obtain information for how to go about it with a google search or two.

Dude, don't even go there, it's WRONG and you know it, there is no way to justify STEALING, YOU are what's wrong with the world today, you are a thief plain and simple
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 94
11/8/07 at 2:35pm
The thing is, you know it's stealing, you only try to justify it using facts. It's like me saying "Well officer, this is how I WASN'T breaking the law", trying to advert the situation from the main problem.

And if you want a free OS, go with Linux. As long as you have the time, it's way better. GIMP is free (there's your black and white stuff) along with all the other open-source free software.

Don't justify your intent. If you want something for free, then take something that is for free.
alldaydrive.com
.rock.
Reply
alldaydrive.com
.rock.
Reply
post #80 of 94
11/8/07 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post

The thing is, you know it's stealing, you only try to justify it using facts. It's like me saying "Well officer, this is how I WASN'T breaking the law", trying to advert the situation from the main problem.

Lol,
"Honest Officer, I had to swerve to hit him."
Mac Mini 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, 80GB HD+160GB External HD
Running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard

Upgrade Your Mini Yourself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2

All wrong. Avon perfumes...

Reply
Mac Mini 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, 80GB HD+160GB External HD
Running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard

Upgrade Your Mini Yourself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2

All wrong. Avon perfumes...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Please Don't Bite My Head Off......But