21 Aug, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
So when a piece is aired for free (for the end user) on the waves or in a show on tv, what logic is behind the fact you should have to pay it if you use another channel to listen to it ?
There is no logic, and so no one can understand why it is wrong to do so.
It is only wrong in the head of the MEDIAS…


Great, another one.

Folks, just because you do not understand the law nor the intent behind it doesn't
mean it actually is illogical.

It just means you don't understand it.

Moreover, a law doesn't need to fit abstract strictures of logic to serve a social need.

I don't know what the mystery here is, honestly. This ain't rocket science.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
21 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
If you can't explain something, chances are you don't really have a place talking down to people in regards to it.

Maya/Rudha
21 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
Keep fighting the power. Free multimedia is a right.

On second thought just go out and make your own and give it away for free.
21 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Keep fighting the power. Free multimedia is a right.

On second thought just go out and make your own and give it away for free.


Noooo…..
I want to be compensated for my hard work, but I have a right to other's works,
most especially those works owned by evil mega corporations like Metallica and Merl Haggard. /snark
IP wants to be free! Everyone must FOSS daily.
From each according to their ability to create, to each according to their inability and need to consume.
Imagine there's no IP, I wonder if you'd tried.
Patents cause global warming and mass species extinction.
/sarkity snark
21 Aug, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
you don't really have a place talking down to people


It's called "condescending", dearie, and I'll assert my right to do so in the terms that suited
one of the USA's founding fathers:

Thomas Jefferson said:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them


-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
21 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
It's called "condescending", dearie


It's called being a jerk, ma'am.
22 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure why I get myself into measuring contests. I lose by default by virtue of not having that particular part of the anatomy.

There is legitimate dialogue on both sides of the matter as regards patents. This doesn't mean the law isn't as it is now. That also doesn't mean the law can't change, nor does it mean it should not be followed regardless. But instead of engaging in some sort of intellectual debate arguing the merits of different positions or points we're basically calling each other stupid. It's like grade school all over again except I cant hit people being stupidly belligerent on the internet.

Maya/Rudha
22 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
If you're going to be making a decision where you might be crossing the line with the law, be sure of two things A: you can justify it in a way that a reasonable person (or twenty reasonable persons on a jury) can be convinced of and B: you're fully aware of, and prepared for, the consequences if you can't convince them.

Please don't take this badly, but of the whole post I think this is the part most worth keeping. Crat might have been acerbic, but a lot of the rest was confusing or self-contradictory. :sad: I had started writing a longer explanation, but I feel that debating this would do nobody much good in the end of the day here, so unless you actually care about the topic I'll leave it at that.

Also, it's somewhat underhanded to talk about pissing contests while insinuating (insultingly) that somehow it's an exclusively male thing to do; as you noted yourself, you seem to have gotten yourself into this one on your own.



Rarva: you are arguing pure ideology, not pragmatics. This is a discussion about pragmatics, not ideology. Please don't mix them together. Whether or not these laws are silly is completely irrelevant to the question of what will, in actuality, get you in trouble with the law. The laws being silly is relevant only to efforts you might undertake to have them changed.
22 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, women do as well. It was more a statement of exasperation. I think you have the right idea though, its pretty obvious that while I could try to clarify my position further, it's not going to lead to much honest dialogue so as the leper said to his mistress, where's the bloody point? (Apologies to Yahtzee Crowshaw.)

Maya/Rudha
22 Aug, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
while I could try to clarify my position further


Your position is specious nonsense. You've argued that IP piracy can be within the spirit of the law,
but when shown the very spirit of that law as derived from the US Constitution, shrink from describing
how IP piracy complies with it.

Note that some-guy writing in some-blag that he's ok in some-way with people using his software
beyond what contract or license allows is only evidence of that one guy talking about his approach
to rights he has, whether he exercises them or not.

Note also that I am neither the person resorting to pejorative name calling in this thread, nor am I the
person whose posts have degenerated to schoolyard anatomy tangents.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
22 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Note also that I am neither the person resorting to pejorative name calling in this thread, nor am I the
person whose posts have degenerated to schoolyard anatomy tangents.


Kettle. Cauldron. Black. Really not much more to say about that one. Ancillary emotional and ultimately specious back-biting tends to inspire, guess what? Ancillary emotional and ultimately specious back-biting. Quelle surprise.

Maya/Rudha
22 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Great, another one.
Folks, just because you do not understand the law nor the intent behind it doesn't
mean it actually is illogical.
It just means you don't understand it.

You know what, it is not because it is a law that it has to be logical and good for the society either….

And I was not talking about myself but about the general population that will never understand a law that is basically against common sense. (not that common sense is always right either before your argue on that)

When you distribute something through a channel for free, then pursue people for distributing the exact same thing you did for free, common people cannot understand it. (especially when you use your own distribution channel, and do not deprieve the original distributor from any real money or physical goods(thus the stupid 'potential loss of money' that would be higher than the income of a whole nation)

The logic of medias being 'hey I was just giving the first shot for free then I am trying to milk people once they are hooked !!'

Don't people have the right and duty to rebel against those things in the constitution ? Is constitution not above all laws ? *snicker*

Just say the truth, it is not at all about respecting the laws, but about who has the more money to force HIS law down your throat.
22 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, as you said, "common sense" is not always right – so why are you making an argument based on your common sense here? It sounds like you're saying that the law is illogical from the perspective of somebody who hasn't really thought about the issue for more than a minute. What is that proving?
22 Aug, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
especially when you use your own distribution channel, and do not deprieve the original distributor from any real money or physical goods


First, I call shenanigans on this. I have had conversations with very many people who have illegal copies of music, and precisely 0 of them have gotten it by making recordings off of the radio. If you honestly think people are not downloading music ripped off of CD's, you are wrong.

Rarva.Riendf said:
When you distribute something through a channel for free, then pursue people for distributing the exact same thing you did for free, common people cannot understand it. (especially when you use your own distribution channel, and do not deprieve the original distributor from any real money or physical goods(thus the stupid 'potential loss of money' that would be higher than the income of a whole nation)

The logic of medias being 'hey I was just giving the first shot for free then I am trying to milk people once they are hooked !!'

Don't people have the right and duty to rebel against those things in the constitution ? Is constitution not above all laws ? *snicker*

Just say the truth, it is not at all about respecting the laws, but about who has the more money to force HIS law down your throat.


So when I go to the supermarket and try a sample cup of a new brand of crackers, or I go to an ice cream shop and get a tasting spoon of a flavor, that entitles me to receive as much as I want for free? 'Cause they were giving me a first shot for free and then tried to milk me, right?

No ice cream, crackers, music or software is addictive - you are not hooked, and it is not necessary to your existence, therefore its theft cannot be justified.

These things may make your life more fun, more easily productive or tastier, but those are enhancements that someone took the time and effort to create, and they deserve to be compensated.

I am a professional musician, but you say that one should never charge for something that can be temporarily heard for free. So what do you recommend for me? Should we abolish the concept of music on the radio, so no one can hear samples of my music and have to decide whether or not they'll spend money on it with no clue as to whether they'll like it? Or should I never charge for my music, and…well, how would you like me to buy food?
22 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
First, I call shenanigans on this. I have had conversations with very many people who have illegal copies of music, and precisely 0 of them have gotten it by making recordings off of the radio. If you honestly think people are not downloading music ripped off of CD's, you are wrong.


As someone who is a professional musician yourself, it comes as a surprise to me that you seem to disregard (or attempt to discredit?) the existence of bootleg audio. It's definitely not the preferred modus operandi for the average "pirate" these days, but it's still something that happens.

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, listening to the radio for free is alright by copyright law, but making recordings of that audio is not.

Maya/Rudha
22 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 116th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
This is a discussion about pragmatics, not ideology.


It's pragmatic to take the simplest, most effective choice. In this case, use a copy of their design because Square can't be bothered with MUDs. This has become an amateur legal conversation with little bearing on reality. Not pragmatism.
22 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 117th comment:
Votes: 0
ATT_Turan said:
First, I call shenanigans on this. I have had conversations with very many people who have illegal copies of music, and precisely 0 of them have gotten it by making recordings off of the radio. If you honestly think people are not downloading music ripped off of CD's, you are wrong.

You are not getting the point, (and the music is not different depending on the media so why woudl that make a difference), and there would be no difference according to the law. You do not have the right to redistribute, whatever the source anyway.

ATT_Turan said:
So when I go to the supermarket and try a sample cup of a new brand of crackers, or I go to an ice cream shop and get a tasting spoon of a flavor, that entitles me to receive as much as I want for free? 'Cause they were giving me a first shot for free and then tried to milk me, right?

Hmm you are , again , comparing physical goods against immaterials, your comparaison is irrevelant as you cannot have physical goods without deprieving someone else of this good. When someone distribute your music, they steal nothing from you, you can say you lose the potential to sell, or you could gain a potential of sales since more people heard of you….cannot have your cake and eat it too.

ATT_Turan said:
I am a professional musician, but you say that one should never charge for something that can be temporarily heard for free.

If you distributed once for free, why should we pay you in the first place for this after that…? People would not steal from you, they would just get what you gave for free….but by another mean….without deprieving anyone from anything.

ATT_Turan said:
So what do you recommend for me? Should we abolish the concept of music on the radio, so no one can hear samples of my music and have to decide whether or not they'll spend money on it

Have you heard the concept of albums ? Only singles are heard for free….So I have a hint for you….have a good album instead of one good single and the rest of crap….
You can complain then that your album is pirated, and I would fully back you up, really….but about the single you aired for free ? Go to hell.

ATT_Turan said:
Or should I never charge for my music, and…well, how would you like me to buy food?

See above, otherwise work like anyone else, when I was in IT I was paid to program, once my work was done, I was not paid everytime my programs were used you know….
22 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 118th comment:
Votes: 0
So to sum this up, some non musicians are completely indignant about paying for a product they enjoy.

When asked to explain their position they ramble on in a way that would inspire none except the most morally bankrupt.

And then as their rambling is picked apart they dispute it with disproportionate generalizations that make up a small percentage of the crime to protect all pirates.

Really the whole thing is fail. These people would feel different if they were the victim instead of the criminal.
22 Aug, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 119th comment:
Votes: 0
Looks like I need not have bothered telling the story of my research survey.

The point was made here for me in vivid fashion.

Rarva, Rudha, Ssolvarain, thanks.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
22 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 120th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
As someone who is a professional musician yourself, it comes as a surprise to me that you seem to disregard (or attempt to discredit?) the existence of bootleg audio. It's definitely not the preferred modus operandi for the average "pirate" these days, but it's still something that happens.

He didn't disregard it, he merely said that the vast majority of pirating was done other ways. When he said that zero people pirate music off of the radio, he said quite clearly that was of the people he has spoken to about this. For what it's worth, I also do not know a single person who pirates music off of the radio; for starters, the quality is too poor for their tastes…

Ssolvarain said:
It's pragmatic to take the simplest, most effective choice. In this case, use a copy of their design because Square can't be bothered with MUDs. This has become an amateur legal conversation with little bearing on reality. Not pragmatism.

I'm guessing you also steal stuff from stores if you think you can get away with it. The cheerfulness with which you advocate doing the illegal, without even bothering to rationalize it, makes it somewhat off-putting to be even talking with you.

Rarva said:
When someone distribute your music, they steal nothing from you

Well, I hope you do not make a living from software, for otherwise your position would be astoundingly hypocritical. Oh, wait, you did use to make a living from software. So, uh, I guess you're astoundingly hypocritical. :sad:

Rarva said:
, you can say you lose the potential to sell, or you could gain a potential of sales since more people heard of you….cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Turan already said that he's very happy for music to be on the radio, because it gives people a chance to consider a purchase. But you're not happy with radio. You seem to be happy neither with radio, nor with selling music in stores. What exactly would it take to please you? What is the conclusion you are driving at? Should all recorded music be free in all circumstances? Should it only be available for purchase/subscription?

Your position is incoherent and only leads to absurd conclusions.

Rarva said:
but about the single you aired for free ? Go to hell.

This kind of comment is wildly inappropriate and it would be better if you did not make it again.

Rarva said:
when I was in IT I was paid to program, once my work was done, I was not paid everytime my programs were used you know….

That is completely different; you were not the IP owner of the products in question, and furthermore you were, presumably, paid a salary.

If Turan were playing in an orchestra and then quit the orchestra, he would similarly have no further compensation. (I have never heard of an orchestra that divided IP among the players, but I suppose in principle it is possible.)
100.0/157