Nice try but no way. It does not matter which DVDs the friend wants to copy. The fact is, the poster participates in illegal distribution when it suits him. I use the present tense because he still has the DVDs and does not seem to be willing to give them up. He thinks it is OK because he can't acquire legal ones. The moral answer would be not to acquire them at all. Therefore, he is saying that his friend's moral justification for stealing is not as good as his own. That is what I am calling hypocrisy.
He is under no moral imperative to help other people obtain copies of anything. Just because you have done action "X" does not mean that you are required to help everyone else do action "X" -- to think otherwise is ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
-snip-
Doctors get paid a lot. But they only get paid for the procedures they do and other measurable activities. They get paid for saving your life, not for every breath you take afterward. Athletes get paid for the games they play and advertisements they do. They get paid to entertain you. They do not get paid for the number of times you relive the big score or for the pride you carry with you. Entertainers should get a fair wage for the content they produce. They produce it once. They should get paid once. Once they are paid, everything else is just distribution. This applies to everyone else in the food chain. These days, distribution costs next to nothing. Coincidentally, that is about how much people are willing to pay for the distribution of music, and now movies. In my brave new world, I am uncertain what fair pay for entertainers looks like. I am certain that compensation from obscene distribution taxes is not it.
The "They produce it once. They should get paid once." equation does not work at all for intellectual works -- it never has and it never will. Copyright laws are needed to encourage people to publish their works so they will enter the public domain. The main problem with our current copyright laws is that the copyright stays in effect for far too many years. They should be like patents and last for 20 years: that would still be enough protection to encourage individuals to publish their works.
As for pirating in general: I am a musician and songwriter and I don't have a problem with you buying a tape from me and making a copy or two to give to your friends. If, on the other hand, you take my tape and decide to publish it, selling or giving away thousands of copies to total strangers, I will not be a happy camper.
The suggestion that capitalism would break down without copyrights and patents is just absurd. It has existed in a throttled form from the day the first voluntary trade was made between humans.
I am a capitalist. I very strongly support the ownership of property. Ideas are not property. Neither is the use of ideas.
Copyright and patents were invented to increase the volume and quality of work produced and available to the general public. Copyrights' and patents' way of supposedly accomplishing this is to hand the creator a limited monopoly to the use of the idea, in other words, restricting everyone else's use of it.
Law-imposed monopolies to further public good? Copyright and patents are socialist. For further proof, consider that you own a CD recorder and blank CD's, located in your house, on your property. Copyright restricts what you may do with these things, even when your action doesn't affect anyone else's property. Here we see that copyright undermines the right to property, which is the cornerstone of capitalism.
Patents (Law-imposed monopolies) are indeed needed to further the public good, and will be prevalent in any successful capitalistic society. Without patents technological advances by private organizations would slow to a crawl. If company "A" spends a hundred million on R&D to develop a new product, without patents company "B" could manufacture the same product, and since they would not need to recoup the hundred million R&D cost would undercut and drive company "A" out of business. Do you know how much of our medical and other high-tech products would never been invented without patent protection?
Patents (Law-imposed monopolies) are indeed needed to further the public good, and will be prevalent in any successful capitalistic society.
I said that these monopolies are antithetical to capitalism by their very nature, and offered an explanation why. Now since you're going a direction that is about 180 degrees different, it would be customary to provide some reasoning behind your claim.
Besides... there is no public good. The closest thing is Pareto efficiency, but it's not measurable and somewhat theoretical when large groups of real people are in question.
Quote:
Without patents technological advances by private organizations would slow to a crawl. If company "A" spends a hundred million on R&D to develop a new product, without patents company "B" could manufacture the same product, and since they would not need to recoup the hundred million R&D cost would undercut and drive company "A" out of business.
The company still has a time-to-market advantage. How long, depends on the type of product. "Most high-tech products" are complicated enough that they would take a great deal of time to reverse engineer, set up production and bring to market. And that's just for producing the physical thing. High-tech products tend to be "solutions" or "systems" with a large supporting infrastructure, guarantees, support, futureproofing, not just single gadgets in a vacuum.
Companies can also take steps to keep their products or parts of them a trade secret.
Also, do not underestimate the power of branding and customer loyalty.
Speaking specifically of medicine, a big part of the incredible R&D costs in that field are due to government regulation and licensing which, like patents, does not belong in capitalism.
Quote:
Do you know how much of our medical and other high-tech products would never been invented without patent protection?
No. And neither do you. Same goes for how much patents have slowed innovation.
The "They produce it once. They should get paid once." equation does not work at all for intellectual works -- it never has and it never will. Copyright laws are needed to encourage people to publish their works so they will enter the public domain. The main problem with our current copyright laws is that the copyright stays in effect for far too many years. They should be like patents and last for 20 years: that would still be enough protection to encourage individuals to publish their works.
5 years would be enough. The majority of album sales come in the few months to maybe a year of sales. Just like with game software. The majority of sales are within the first couple of months and then the sales just taper off to next to nothing. To me, 20 years is just as excessive as 90 years past the death of the author (or whatever it is at now). 5 years after the an album's release, there is not much to generate sales other than radio play and concerts. And let's face it... "Best of" albums are just money grabs for people that 'got on the bandwagon' late and don't want to buy a bunch of albums just to get the hits. People that are fans aren't going to wait 5 years just to get the album for free or at an extremely reduced price.
I said that these monopolies are antithetical to capitalism by their very nature, and offered an explanation why. Now since you're going a direction that is about 180 degrees different, it would be customary to provide some reasoning behind your claim.
Capitalism without government regulation will produce monopolies on its own. Look at the tech sector. It was largely unregulated due to its rapid growth and entirely different medium from anything that had come before it. Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, which it then leveraged to get a web browser monopoly. Microsoft also has a office productivity suite monopoly. Now Microsoft is also using all of this to leverage its way into home entertainment by trying to get Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to use WMV and by getting the XBox line to be entertainment consoles that do everything from play your music, to movies, to video games. This is purely the work of capitalism.
Now that Microsoft is so large and has such huge stocks of cash, they can litigate, buy out, or just stomp on any competition that comes along. Without government regulation, you probably wouldn't even have Microsoft products for OS X. This is largely in part, because Microsoft wants to be able to point to Apple and say, "Look we have competition."
Capitalism isn't some pure goal that once obtained will bring equality to all, and no one will go hungry. Capitalism won't let us all join hands and sing kumbaya once there is no governmental intervention. I mean, pure capitalism borders on anarchy. Sure there is a balance, but if you have read anything about areas that were ruled by anarchy you will know that it was basically 'eye for an eye.' The only thing keeping you from murdering someone was fear of retribution by the family/friends.
Quote:
Besides... there is no public good.
I think that the 'public good' he was referring to was that the thing was developed in the first place. If you knew you had to spend $3 billion to develop medicine and you could only get $300 million back before copycats flooded the market, would you even bother?
For DVD's, at least, I find it morally acceptable because a director or actor isn't going to get any more money if I rent it instead of downloading it.
all you did was let her borrow a dvd...what ever she did with it is on her shoulders so don't sweat it, if it makes you feel any better tell her you personally don't copy dvd's and maybe that will be hint enough that you don't want to know about it.
to me buying a pirated dvd is worse than copying a friends but that is just because those guys who make money off of them are the ones that have made it bad for the rest of us.
to me buying a pirated dvd is worse than copying a friends but that is just because those guys who make money off of them are the ones that have made it bad for the rest of us.
Most of the big pirating operations are in Southeast Asia and fund gangs like the Triads. If you ever go to a site that is selling HKDVDs (HK = Hong Kong) almost 100% of them are from pirating operations... Especially the "Entire Anime Collection for $30" (that would normally cost $60-$100) ones.
yeah....I'm not advocating any kind of piracy it's just that I feel the organized crime aspect has made the studios so paranoid that they treat us all like criminals.....it is sad that we will soon have to resort to being illegal just to tape an episode off tv....thats what the dvi/hdmi connector is all about.....complete control over their content. I personally share my collection of dvd's with my friends, to many that may make me a thief....I'll just have to live with that...I will always share everything with my friends.
Okay, so my wife and i have seasons 1-3 of the "Gilmore Girls." We love the program, but that's not really my point now. One of our friends borrowed the first season and copied the whole thing without telling us until after the fact. Not wanting to cause a stir, I didn't give any indication that there was a problem. Now, she asked for seasons 2 & 3 so she could copy them (she was up-front with this, she didn't ask to 'borrow' them).
This makes me really uncomfortable. I mean, I know lots of people have a thing or two that they don't own the copyright to, and it isn't something I lose sleep over or really care that much about, heck I have a half-dozen illegal DVDs (legal ones can't really be purchased in this country). What is really bothering me is that when I say no to this girl, I will come off as somehow unreasonable or on some kind of copyright crusade. I HATE that I am made to feel uncomfortable by refusing to activily participate in something illegal. I hate that it is seen as a "thing I have.." or whatever.
Just thought I'd rant. Can anyone relate? Does my ownership of a couple illegal DVDs obligate me to participate in future copyright breaches or make me some sort of hypocrite?
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
If you really felt bad about pirating you would not have pirated stuff in your house!!
Saying that you cannot buy them legally in Macedonie is BS, go to amazon and buy it there. I think you have to much time.
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
If you really felt bad about pirating you would not have pirated stuff in your house!!
Saying that you cannot buy them legally in Macedonie is BS, go to amazon and buy it there. I think you have to much time.
This post alone makes me consider taking back my statement that this was a really mature discussion.
Incidentally, most discussion forums consider it bad form to edit posts without explicitly saying so--it can add confusion to a discussion.
The guy asked people's opinion about his acting, i gave him mine...
No, actually--he presented a perfectly legitimate ethical concern and you called him stupid without bothering to read the four pages of discussion on why this is a complicated and subtle issue.
No, actually--he presented a perfectly legitimate ethical concern and you called him stupid without bothering to read the four pages of discussion on why this is a complicated and subtle issue.
My meaning is that having pirated software without any shame in possession, you cannot be honestly having any problems with piracy.
The fact that this guy feels bad about sharing something he payed for tells about his egoistic behavior because HE payed for it and SHE not. Eventually, he did not had that problem when he got the first pirated stuff.
My meaning is that having pirated software without any shame in possession, you cannot be honestly having any problems with piracy.
The fact that this guy feels bad about sharing something he payed for tells about his egoistic behavior because HE payed for it and SHE not. Eventually, he did not had that problem when he got the first pirated stuff.
I did read all the discussions.
You can't expect to convey your meaning when you insult someone and end multiple sentences in double exclamation marks. Your point depends on your outright accusation that the OP was lying, ("i know your country") and was conveyed in a very black-and-white (not to mention rude) manner.
Even you're as right as you think you are, the fact is that pretty much everybody here is talking about the issue on a deeper level than you are, and is being a lot more friendly about it.
You can't expect to convey your meaning when you insult someone and end multiple sentences in double exclamation marks. Your point depends on your outright accusation that the OP was lying, ("i know your country") and was conveyed in a very black-and-white (not to mention rude) manner.
Even you're as right as you think you are, the fact is that pretty much everybody here is talking about the issue on a deeper level than you are, and is being a lot more friendly about it.
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
Well, I think sternone might have labeled me his enemy since this thread. although i'm guessing that's not the point.
i sort of feel like i'm repeating myself, but the central question I kept asking was 'does my ownership of even one pirated cd/dvd OBLIGATE me to participate in future copyright breaches?' some people said yes, some said no, maybe now would be a good time to actually read the thread and review this. You are agreeing with Mac Voyer and some others who say that any past breach of copyright OBLIGATES me to participate in future copyright breaches, plus you threw in that I was stupid.
The thing that originally inspired the thread and what at least one person said was 'where the issue ultimately leads' is how i hate that I should be considered stingy, stiff-necked, a hypocrite, or something similar for choosing NOT to participate in something that is illegal and against my gut.
And, uh, yeah. I didn't think there was too much left to talk about in this thread, but I guess I overlooked name-calling.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Nice try but no way. It does not matter which DVDs the friend wants to copy. The fact is, the poster participates in illegal distribution when it suits him. I use the present tense because he still has the DVDs and does not seem to be willing to give them up. He thinks it is OK because he can't acquire legal ones. The moral answer would be not to acquire them at all. Therefore, he is saying that his friend's moral justification for stealing is not as good as his own. That is what I am calling hypocrisy.
He is under no moral imperative to help other people obtain copies of anything. Just because you have done action "X" does not mean that you are required to help everyone else do action "X" -- to think otherwise is ludicrous.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
-snip-
Doctors get paid a lot. But they only get paid for the procedures they do and other measurable activities. They get paid for saving your life, not for every breath you take afterward. Athletes get paid for the games they play and advertisements they do. They get paid to entertain you. They do not get paid for the number of times you relive the big score or for the pride you carry with you. Entertainers should get a fair wage for the content they produce. They produce it once. They should get paid once. Once they are paid, everything else is just distribution. This applies to everyone else in the food chain. These days, distribution costs next to nothing. Coincidentally, that is about how much people are willing to pay for the distribution of music, and now movies. In my brave new world, I am uncertain what fair pay for entertainers looks like. I am certain that compensation from obscene distribution taxes is not it.
The "They produce it once. They should get paid once." equation does not work at all for intellectual works -- it never has and it never will. Copyright laws are needed to encourage people to publish their works so they will enter the public domain. The main problem with our current copyright laws is that the copyright stays in effect for far too many years. They should be like patents and last for 20 years: that would still be enough protection to encourage individuals to publish their works.
As for pirating in general: I am a musician and songwriter and I don't have a problem with you buying a tape from me and making a copy or two to give to your friends. If, on the other hand, you take my tape and decide to publish it, selling or giving away thousands of copies to total strangers, I will not be a happy camper.
Originally posted by Gon
-snip-
The suggestion that capitalism would break down without copyrights and patents is just absurd. It has existed in a throttled form from the day the first voluntary trade was made between humans.
I am a capitalist. I very strongly support the ownership of property. Ideas are not property. Neither is the use of ideas.
Copyright and patents were invented to increase the volume and quality of work produced and available to the general public. Copyrights' and patents' way of supposedly accomplishing this is to hand the creator a limited monopoly to the use of the idea, in other words, restricting everyone else's use of it.
Law-imposed monopolies to further public good? Copyright and patents are socialist. For further proof, consider that you own a CD recorder and blank CD's, located in your house, on your property. Copyright restricts what you may do with these things, even when your action doesn't affect anyone else's property. Here we see that copyright undermines the right to property, which is the cornerstone of capitalism.
Patents (Law-imposed monopolies) are indeed needed to further the public good, and will be prevalent in any successful capitalistic society. Without patents technological advances by private organizations would slow to a crawl. If company "A" spends a hundred million on R&D to develop a new product, without patents company "B" could manufacture the same product, and since they would not need to recoup the hundred million R&D cost would undercut and drive company "A" out of business. Do you know how much of our medical and other high-tech products would never been invented without patent protection?
Originally posted by Res
Patents (Law-imposed monopolies) are indeed needed to further the public good, and will be prevalent in any successful capitalistic society.
I said that these monopolies are antithetical to capitalism by their very nature, and offered an explanation why. Now since you're going a direction that is about 180 degrees different, it would be customary to provide some reasoning behind your claim.
Besides... there is no public good. The closest thing is Pareto efficiency, but it's not measurable and somewhat theoretical when large groups of real people are in question.
Without patents technological advances by private organizations would slow to a crawl. If company "A" spends a hundred million on R&D to develop a new product, without patents company "B" could manufacture the same product, and since they would not need to recoup the hundred million R&D cost would undercut and drive company "A" out of business.
The company still has a time-to-market advantage. How long, depends on the type of product. "Most high-tech products" are complicated enough that they would take a great deal of time to reverse engineer, set up production and bring to market. And that's just for producing the physical thing. High-tech products tend to be "solutions" or "systems" with a large supporting infrastructure, guarantees, support, futureproofing, not just single gadgets in a vacuum.
Companies can also take steps to keep their products or parts of them a trade secret.
Also, do not underestimate the power of branding and customer loyalty.
Speaking specifically of medicine, a big part of the incredible R&D costs in that field are due to government regulation and licensing which, like patents, does not belong in capitalism.
Do you know how much of our medical and other high-tech products would never been invented without patent protection?
No. And neither do you. Same goes for how much patents have slowed innovation.
Originally posted by Res
The "They produce it once. They should get paid once." equation does not work at all for intellectual works -- it never has and it never will. Copyright laws are needed to encourage people to publish their works so they will enter the public domain. The main problem with our current copyright laws is that the copyright stays in effect for far too many years. They should be like patents and last for 20 years: that would still be enough protection to encourage individuals to publish their works.
5 years would be enough. The majority of album sales come in the few months to maybe a year of sales. Just like with game software. The majority of sales are within the first couple of months and then the sales just taper off to next to nothing. To me, 20 years is just as excessive as 90 years past the death of the author (or whatever it is at now). 5 years after the an album's release, there is not much to generate sales other than radio play and concerts. And let's face it... "Best of" albums are just money grabs for people that 'got on the bandwagon' late and don't want to buy a bunch of albums just to get the hits. People that are fans aren't going to wait 5 years just to get the album for free or at an extremely reduced price.
Originally posted by Gon
I said that these monopolies are antithetical to capitalism by their very nature, and offered an explanation why. Now since you're going a direction that is about 180 degrees different, it would be customary to provide some reasoning behind your claim.
Capitalism without government regulation will produce monopolies on its own. Look at the tech sector. It was largely unregulated due to its rapid growth and entirely different medium from anything that had come before it. Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, which it then leveraged to get a web browser monopoly. Microsoft also has a office productivity suite monopoly. Now Microsoft is also using all of this to leverage its way into home entertainment by trying to get Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to use WMV and by getting the XBox line to be entertainment consoles that do everything from play your music, to movies, to video games. This is purely the work of capitalism.
Now that Microsoft is so large and has such huge stocks of cash, they can litigate, buy out, or just stomp on any competition that comes along. Without government regulation, you probably wouldn't even have Microsoft products for OS X. This is largely in part, because Microsoft wants to be able to point to Apple and say, "Look we have competition."
Capitalism isn't some pure goal that once obtained will bring equality to all, and no one will go hungry. Capitalism won't let us all join hands and sing kumbaya once there is no governmental intervention. I mean, pure capitalism borders on anarchy. Sure there is a balance, but if you have read anything about areas that were ruled by anarchy you will know that it was basically 'eye for an eye.' The only thing keeping you from murdering someone was fear of retribution by the family/friends.
Besides... there is no public good.
I think that the 'public good' he was referring to was that the thing was developed in the first place. If you knew you had to spend $3 billion to develop medicine and you could only get $300 million back before copycats flooded the market, would you even bother?
to me buying a pirated dvd is worse than copying a friends but that is just because those guys who make money off of them are the ones that have made it bad for the rest of us.
Originally posted by mercury7
to me buying a pirated dvd is worse than copying a friends but that is just because those guys who make money off of them are the ones that have made it bad for the rest of us.
Most of the big pirating operations are in Southeast Asia and fund gangs like the Triads. If you ever go to a site that is selling HKDVDs (HK = Hong Kong) almost 100% of them are from pirating operations... Especially the "Entire Anime Collection for $30" (that would normally cost $60-$100) ones.
Originally posted by progmac
Okay, so my wife and i have seasons 1-3 of the "Gilmore Girls." We love the program, but that's not really my point now. One of our friends borrowed the first season and copied the whole thing without telling us until after the fact. Not wanting to cause a stir, I didn't give any indication that there was a problem. Now, she asked for seasons 2 & 3 so she could copy them (she was up-front with this, she didn't ask to 'borrow' them).
This makes me really uncomfortable. I mean, I know lots of people have a thing or two that they don't own the copyright to, and it isn't something I lose sleep over or really care that much about, heck I have a half-dozen illegal DVDs (legal ones can't really be purchased in this country). What is really bothering me is that when I say no to this girl, I will come off as somehow unreasonable or on some kind of copyright crusade. I HATE that I am made to feel uncomfortable by refusing to activily participate in something illegal. I hate that it is seen as a "thing I have.." or whatever.
Just thought I'd rant. Can anyone relate? Does my ownership of a couple illegal DVDs obligate me to participate in future copyright breaches or make me some sort of hypocrite?
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
If you really felt bad about pirating you would not have pirated stuff in your house!!
Saying that you cannot buy them legally in Macedonie is BS, go to amazon and buy it there. I think you have to much time.
Originally posted by sternone
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
If you really felt bad about pirating you would not have pirated stuff in your house!!
Saying that you cannot buy them legally in Macedonie is BS, go to amazon and buy it there. I think you have to much time.
This post alone makes me consider taking back my statement that this was a really mature discussion.
Incidentally, most discussion forums consider it bad form to edit posts without explicitly saying so--it can add confusion to a discussion.
Originally posted by Duckspeak
This post alone makes me consider taking back my statement that this was a really mature discussion.
Incidentally, most discussion forums consider it bad form to edit posts without explicitly saying so--it can add confusion to a discussion.
The guy asked people's opinion about his acting, i gave him mine...
Originally posted by sternone
The guy asked people's opinion about his acting, i gave him mine...
No, actually--he presented a perfectly legitimate ethical concern and you called him stupid without bothering to read the four pages of discussion on why this is a complicated and subtle issue.
Originally posted by Duckspeak
No, actually--he presented a perfectly legitimate ethical concern and you called him stupid without bothering to read the four pages of discussion on why this is a complicated and subtle issue.
My meaning is that having pirated software without any shame in possession, you cannot be honestly having any problems with piracy.
The fact that this guy feels bad about sharing something he payed for tells about his egoistic behavior because HE payed for it and SHE not. Eventually, he did not had that problem when he got the first pirated stuff.
I did read all the discussions.
Originally posted by sternone
My meaning is that having pirated software without any shame in possession, you cannot be honestly having any problems with piracy.
The fact that this guy feels bad about sharing something he payed for tells about his egoistic behavior because HE payed for it and SHE not. Eventually, he did not had that problem when he got the first pirated stuff.
I did read all the discussions.
You can't expect to convey your meaning when you insult someone and end multiple sentences in double exclamation marks. Your point depends on your outright accusation that the OP was lying, ("i know your country") and was conveyed in a very black-and-white (not to mention rude) manner.
Even you're as right as you think you are, the fact is that pretty much everybody here is talking about the issue on a deeper level than you are, and is being a lot more friendly about it.
Originally posted by Duckspeak
You can't expect to convey your meaning when you insult someone and end multiple sentences in double exclamation marks. Your point depends on your outright accusation that the OP was lying, ("i know your country") and was conveyed in a very black-and-white (not to mention rude) manner.
Even you're as right as you think you are, the fact is that pretty much everybody here is talking about the issue on a deeper level than you are, and is being a lot more friendly about it.
Welcome to earth
Originally posted by sternone
Dude, i know your country, you must be the only one there acting like this, further more, admidding that you have already illegal stuff tells alot about how you work with double standards!! I find your story and your way of acting very stupid.
Well, I think sternone might have labeled me his enemy since this thread. although i'm guessing that's not the point.
i sort of feel like i'm repeating myself, but the central question I kept asking was 'does my ownership of even one pirated cd/dvd OBLIGATE me to participate in future copyright breaches?' some people said yes, some said no, maybe now would be a good time to actually read the thread and review this. You are agreeing with Mac Voyer and some others who say that any past breach of copyright OBLIGATES me to participate in future copyright breaches, plus you threw in that I was stupid.
The thing that originally inspired the thread and what at least one person said was 'where the issue ultimately leads' is how i hate that I should be considered stingy, stiff-necked, a hypocrite, or something similar for choosing NOT to participate in something that is illegal and against my gut.
And, uh, yeah. I didn't think there was too much left to talk about in this thread, but I guess I overlooked name-calling.
Originally posted by sternone
Welcome to earth
Please, noble human, teach me how to communicate with your people! You are obviously a being of great wisdom and culture.
Originally posted by Duckspeak
Please, noble human, teach me how to communicate with your people! You are obviously a being of great wisdom and culture.
Yes! At least you are one smart alien, i will learn you following:
i say:
'dance monkey dance'
and you:
dance
You see, that's how it goes around here in my life