Dear cuntbag (sharkfish)
Since you like starting new threads in order to draw attention to your nonsense, here's another new thread all about you. Try to contain your vaginal outpouring until you've read it all.
Stealing (or copyright infringement, if you prefer) is still illegal, even if everyone else is doing it. It is also debatably immoral.
Screaming "But everybody else is doing it too, so shut up!" should be reserved for 13 year olds, whose peers actually consider it to be a self-contained, perfectly valid justification.
Here in the grown up world, we know better, or should know better.
Just cop to it. You steal books. You think it's OK to steal books. Great. That's fine. If you have a reason that you feel it's morally OK to do so, share it! But honey, "everybody else does it!" just makes you sound childish and ignorant, which, I thought, you have been trying to prove you're not. In nearly every one of your threads. While you prove exactly the opposite. Every time. But I digress...
I buy ALL of my books. Yes even textbooks. Two years ago I bought physics, trig, and algebra texts to the tune of over $800. One year ago I had to SAVE UP to buy a pair of $200 glasses and a pair of shoes. So WHO exactly doesn't have money for books? Sounds like it's me. You have the money, you choose to use it elsewhere (despite continued protestations that it's not an option, it IS an option. You also have the option to continue breathing, or not, so quit playing semantics and argue/debate like a Big Girl for once.)
I also used to download mp3s like mad. Like crazy. Tons of mp3s. I feel that paying for them only contributes to the coffers of companies who are trying to legislate away our civil rights for the sake of profit, eroding them away and making it easier for the next guy (Bush and his ilk) to take even more since there's a precedent. So I have political and moral reasons for stealing the music I like rather than feed the machine. You could argue that I should listen to (and pay for) independant music, but my argument is that most independant music sucks, and I like to listen to what my friends like to listen to. This is where my argument becomes weak, but I ACKNOWLEGE IT. I don't cry like a sissy 5 year old that Johnny is doing it, too.
In conclusion, and this is a conclusion I've given you a multitude of times in the past, and you'll ignore it now as you've ignored it then: Grow. The fuck. Up.
I'm probably 30% younger than you and I GET why I'M an ass. When are you going to figure out why YOU are?
So let's get this straight.
You both do the same immoral/illegal thing but somehow you're better because you have some bullshit rationale behind it?
No. I fully admit where my rationale is weak and cop to it. She points her finger around the room crying "Shame! Shame!" to justify what she's doing.
Did you fail basic reading comprehension when you were 8, or something, Locutus? I know English probably isn't your native language but that's a pretty ridiculous (and half-assed) rebuttal.
Piracy != stealing!
"I feel that paying for them only contributes to the coffers of companies who are trying to legislate away our civil rights for the sake of profit"
Well you can count book publishers into that category too -- Google Print ring any bells? A really useful, (pretty much) non-infringing use is in danger because publishers didn't think of it first and are cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.
Any way you slice it, whatever your justification copyright infringement is a crime; just because you think your reason is more morally justifiable than someone else's doesn't change the fact that it's still "wrong", and hurling insults doesn't change that fact. Sharkfish has made her own decision based on her morals, you've made yours, but neither one of you is any more right or wrong than the other. (I have to say, though, that as sharkfish is making her choice for pragmatic reasons whils't you're doing it out of some kind of righteous indignation, I'd side with her.)
"whils't"? That's the third time I've done that today. I'm losing it...
I address the piracy = stealing bit in my post above, Mat. I think maybe you didn't read it.
Anyway my OP doesn't say that what I've done is more illegal or less illegal than what sharkfish is doing. What it says is that while I COP to what I'm up to (as have you, in other threads Mat), shark points her finger at everybody but herself crying about how everybody else is doing it too and therefore they shouldn't comment.
My issue isn't with the physical act, it's with the pouting, crybaby, "he did it first" attitude.
Another guy who failed Remedial Reading. Any more?
And shark doesn't lay out her morals in any of her posts. She doesn't give any sort of even base rationalization for downloading books aside from:
"Everybody else is doing it."
"My other expenses are non-optional."
It's self-evident that both statements are ridiculous. If she wants to stick with the money/budgetting rationale, she could at least say "I feel that my retirement savings are not optional and therefore I infringe copyright (steal) in order to not dip into retirement funds (or whatever)"
That'd be honest.
"that's a pretty ridiculous (and half-assed) rebuttal"
I guess I was unconsciously matching your own level of argumentation 18.
You are both using lame excuses, and so will I if asked, no one is any better for it.
Which is really just a re-wording of this, from my OP:
"Just cop to it. You steal books. You think it's OK to steal books. Great. That's fine. If you have a reason that you feel it's morally OK to do so, share it! But honey, "everybody else does it!" just makes you sound childish and ignorant"
I don't take issue with her stealing books. Fine if she wants to steal books. I agree with your Google Print example. However, she doesn't state it that way. She says "I steal books but it's ok because you steal music and porn" and that's a child's attitude.
Why is this so hard to understand? I think I'm being counter-trolled. :-)
The issue is not in the act but in the acceptance of responsibility for the act. I do. Shark doesn't.
BS, acceptance of responsibility would mean not doing it, reporting yourself to authorities, pay your dues. Stuff like that.
According to YOUR moral compass, Locutus, that's probably true. For me, not so much.
I admit that I've infringed copyright by downloading music. I don't do it anymore, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.
Shark just cries and points fingers and won't admit that what she's done is illegal or immoral.
If you call both of the above scenarios "not accepting responsibility", then I guess your reality is so different from mine that communication is impossible, so that explains your ridiculous responses.
I did read it, and I know that pretty much the first thing you said sort of addressed the piracy/stealing thing, but you still refer to it as stealing later in the post ("you steal books") despite the fact that IT IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, STEALING. This is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of legal definition.
That aside, I know you're not claiming your actions are less illegal than hers, but "you do it, so you're not fit to judge" is a perfectly reasonable thing for sharkfish to say. She freely admits to the piracy, but I guess she doesn't think that other people who do the same thing (for whatever reason) are in any position to chide her for it. Perhaps *you* didn't read *my* post -- I'm just suggesting that your claim that sharkfish saying "I do it, but so do you" is somehow worse or less valid than your "I do it because the record industry is evil" justification.
Personally, I don't have morals.
Whilst .. isn't that sort of medieval? Like 'twixt and .. I dunno... wouldst
Wouldst it be, that thine balls be caught 'twixt the jaws of a badger?
Er, I seem to have missed the end off that last sentence. I think I might go and have a lie down.
"but that's out of the scope of this discussion"
"I guess ... that communication is impossible"
All hail Cheddar, the self declared winner of the debate.
I don't do it therefore I am fit to judge.
Tut,tut, go away and don't do it again...
a cynic writes...
April 26th, 2006 9:05am
"Shark just cries and points fingers and won't admit that what she's done is illegal or immoral. "
Why does it matter what she admits?
April 26th, 2006 9:06am
"I'm just suggesting that your claim that sharkfish saying "I do it, but so do you" is somehow worse or less valid than your "I do it because the record industry is evil" justification."
My justification breaks down in a few places and I admitted all of them. Sharkfish acts as though the phrase "You do it too so neener" is unassailable, which is the sort of thing you'd expect from a 10 yr old. That's pretty much my whole argument and I think, nay I KNOW, that it's valid. :-)
It doesn't matter except that she's starting multiple threads all about why she's right and everyone else is a terrible human being. I just figured a smack down was in order. It's purely entertainment. Since when do we discuss anything relevant here, actually expecting results?
"Sharkfish acts as though the phrase "You do it too so neener" is unassailable"
Given that it's true it is pretty much unassailable. If you stop tyring to see it as a justification (which it isn't) and instead look upon it as an observation or a request that until everyone else stops doing it they should perhaps shut up about how naughty she is then your entire argument becomes pointless and without merit...
Taking your stance that any activity you participate in precludes you from commenting on that same activity as gospel, I suppose that you think any sort of respiratory science is a blasphemy, since we all breath and therefore shouldn't comment. Ditto neurology, endocrinology, psychiatry... and pretty much any medical science. Poof, out the window because it would be morally wrong to examine or discuss any activity in which you participate.
No more talking about sex unless you're a virgin. No more talking about marriage unless you're married. If you're divorced, you're still excluded from debate because you're not married NOW. Don't discuss the weather, we all get rained on. Don't dare bring up fashion since we all wear clothing.
In fact, the very idea of a bunch of software programmers having a forum where they discuss software makes me ill. What's wrong with these people? Don't they see that they're guilty of writing software programs themselves and therefore have no RIGHT to comment on the practice?
Bunch of fucking heathens, all.
as much as i hate to admit it, i agree w/ muppet on this one.
sharkfish claiming that you can't chide her for stealing texts because you don't pay for .MP3s and porn seems like a weak argument to me.
who you steal from certainly should matter when it comes to moral justifcation. ie. stealing <> stealing.
April 26th, 2006 10:01am
"sharkfish claiming that you can't chide her for stealing texts because you don't pay for .MP3s and porn seems like a weak argument to me"
Sounds reasonable to me; judge not lest ye be judged, etc. Call me old fashioned, but hypocritical moral judgements annoy me...
And for the four hundred and sixty seven millionth time, IT'S NOT STEALING!
Copyright infringement is stealing. The similiarity is apparent to everyone who isn't a lawyer, which is WHY the "copyright infringement = stealing" meme got started in the first place.
It's theft. It's theft of intangible property, granted, but still theft.
I understand your eagerness and zeal to make the distinction, but you're going to lose, so give up and stop getting upset about it before you blow an aneurysm.
"It's theft. It's theft of intangible property, granted, but still theft."
Stealing = you take something from somewhere so that it's no longer available to the rightful owner. I steal your car, you have no car; I steal money from your bank account, you can't spend it. Last time I checked, though, downloading a ripped DVD doesn't result in someone who owns the DVD from being unable to watch it.
But you're (theoretically, granted) stealing the potential money that the publisher would have made on that copy of the movie, if you had bought a tangible disc. Since some potential money will certainly become actual money in the right circumstances, you've stolen whatever percentage of the great potential money pool that might be.
<<Stealing = you take something from somewhere so that it's no longer available to the rightful owner.>>
What about identity theft?
How about breaking into a secure system to get credit card numbers, SINs, medical records, etc.?
April 26th, 2006 10:19am
ahem...if it helps we may have another one of those transatlantic semantics issues.
In point of fact Mat is right under English law. Here theft is where you intend to deprive the owner of the thing. Which is why most car crime is covered under a separate offence called Taking Away Without Consent (known as "Twocking" to the charming little rascals). It only becomes theft if the car is destroyed or sold on.
How this semantic jousting actually changes whether "you do it too" carries any weight I don't know.
a cynic writes...
April 26th, 2006 10:30am
it's the same here legally, cynic. Thanks for attempting to be helpful, even though you've failed terribly and embarrassingly. :-)
He helped me, so it's all good. :)
Not really. I already understood your argument. You'll find that legal definitions aren't reality someday, Mat. Someday. :-)
In what way is using a legal definition not appropriate when discussing crime? Did I miss a memo or something?
I wasn't discussing crime I was discussing morality and personal responsibility. Legality and crime are tangentially related but not really relevant to this specific thread.
Boy, if I really craved attention this would be glorious.
If you only knew me. My SO chides me often for not appreciating attention from people. I typically shy away from any attention whatsoever.
I also have to say that Muppet/Cheddar/Mark is the biggest attention whore on this board!
Regardless of perception, I have in the past freely admitted I feel some guilt about my downloading habits.
Name one thread (and link it) that you've expressed remorse in for ANYTHING. :-)
Anyway I'M an attention whore? In case you haven't noticed, schnookums, I've barely posted here (or anywhere else, really) at all in months.
Today only, I bet you're over 30!
Please people! Calm down. You're all attention whores.
Almost H. Anonymous
April 26th, 2006 10:58am
"I wasn't discussing crime I was discussing morality and personal responsibility."
Do you speed? Do you fudge your taxes? Do you look at pornography? Morality and personal responsiblity are not binary good/bad concepts.
Equating infringement with property theft co-mingles ideas that most people do not consider the same *morally* which is perhaps why they aren't the same legally.
Almost H. Anonymous
April 26th, 2006 11:09am
Stealing is a form of liberté -- freedom to do as one wants.
Stealing from the rich is more specialized. It is an instance of égalité -- redistribution of power/wealth because concentration of such wealth as fundementally unequal/unfair.
Not stealing from the poor is also specialized norm. It is a form of fraternité.
Figuring who is rich enough to have their wealth redistributed and who is poor enough to have said wealth distributed to is, to me, the central question of morals.(*)
Revolutions have been started over this debate -- when societal norms become askew from technology/wealth concentration/feelings of 'not getting our fair share'. And will in the future.
(*) A quick, class-based analysis would indicate that Mr Cheddarpants is (re-)establishing middle class life one the facets of which is to obey its property norms (not unlike the normalizing of IP in China). Ms Sharkfish is (re-)identifying herself with the underclass -- all norms, APIs, standards are overturnable because they are part of an unjust system.
My money's on the rebel, 'cause who doesn't like a good pirate story?
Bruno Di Pumadoro
April 26th, 2006 11:11am
if, say, i took a million bucks from someone, put it all into penny stocks for a day, then returned the money (minus the profits) the next day without the owner not being aware of anything having happened, is it stealing?
April 26th, 2006 11:16am
"Equating infringement with property theft co-mingles ideas that most people do not consider the same *morally* which is perhaps why they aren't the same legally."
It's also why it's a bad idea to repeat the lie -- once Joe Lunchpail hears it enough he may start to equate them and will then be less inclined to protest against the broadening of copyright law, the DMCA, the broadcast flag, HDCP, compulsory DRM, the Trusted Computing Platform, etc., all of which will do more harm than good...
Kenny, try it then ask the police!
April 26th, 2006 11:23am
No Kenny - I think you'll find that it would be fraud and/or obtaining money by deception. As it happens someone did just that to Al Capone once.
An offence but a completely different offence.
a cynic writes...
April 26th, 2006 11:27am
This is an interesting thread. I dislike being called a c-bag though.
Anyway, it occurs to me that my personal "rationale" is the pursuit of knowledge. I find it morally okay to "pirate" if the end result is that I am more educated.
I am not so hip on downloading music and film, however, because those are merely entertainment.
I could argue that maintaining a disparate and eclectic music collection is very educational. It opens your eyes to all sorts of cultures, techniques, concepts, musical theory...
"It opens your eyes to all sorts of cultures, techniques, concepts, musical theory..."
I paid $20,000 a year for that in college while I was in music school before I switched majors. Music repeats itself over and over.
"Music repeats itself over and over."
In what way?
OK so in other words I'm right.
""Music repeats itself over and over."
In what way?"
I mean that musical patterns within each genre are repetitive in an obvious way. In musical theory, they teach you the classical music patterns, sometimes pop patterns. If you know them, you recognize them when you listen. Unfortunately, I have a great musical memory and I can hear songs within other songs.
The benefit is that I don't have to listen to music all day: I have a soundtrack in my head that plays all day. Right now, I'm "listening" to KC and The Sunshine Band--I'm Your Boogie Man.
This morning I was "listening" to Deniece Williams--Free. Then that overlapped into DeBarge--All This Love. This goes on all day.
Can you not "switch off" that way of listening? I work in two modes -- listening to *enjoy* the music, and listening analytically to it, and I can switch between them at will. (If not, try listening to some early Yes; it'll confound your expectations. :)
I seem to remember you also view food as just something you eat, and don't derive much pleasure from it. You must live a miserable life, and you're one stone-cold biatch. :)
Isn't it obvious? You've taken years to come to the conclusion that sharkfish is joyless?
"You must live a miserable life, and you're one stone-cold biatch. :)"
No, not at all. I am Thunderpussy! I am warm on the inside, cold on the outside.
But seriously, I derive pleasure from small things. I actually enjoy the fact that I know so many song arrangements by heart. Do you know anyone that can hum the whole of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Minor? Every single movement? Carmen? I know them all. Eine Klein Nachtmusik. Wagner's Romeo and Juliet (I love the Thibald entrance). There is complete and utter joy for me in that at any moment I can immerse myself in so many styles of music without having to actually have a radio or iPod.
How can that make me cold?
I do enjoy sushi immensely, by the way. I gorged myself at lunch a couple weeks ago and my colleagues enjoyed my moaning in ecstasy.
"I could argue that maintaining a disparate and eclectic music collection is very educational. It opens your eyes to all sorts of cultures, techniques, concepts, musical theory..."
You could argue that if you hadn't mentioned the fact that you only listen to mainstream music in your initial post to this thread.
That's not what I said. I said most independant music is crap, and I like to listen to what my friends listen to. While it's close, it's not quite the same thing. I have quite a number of tracks that were never played on any hit radio station.
"Can't we all get along?"
For the children.
April 26th, 2006 6:29pm
I think sharkfish and Cheddar should kiss and have hot makeup sex and put it on "The Internets" for the rest of us to watch!
April 26th, 2006 6:31pm
"my moaning in ecstasy."
Haven't hear that shit for a while. Basically, when I bang a chick I don't give a fuck what she feels or whether she's having a good time or not. But then again, my fuck buddies don't include office sluts, ugly female geeks with huge glasses,etc.
Moaning is over-rated baby.
April 27th, 2006 12:56am
"Moaning is over-rated baby"
Between you, muppet and sharkfish I get all the moaning I'm ever going to need...
++stealing the potential money that the publisher would have made on that copy of the movie
In the cases where I have downloaded things, there was exactly $0 of potential revenue lost by the publisher. Had I not been able to download it, I would not have it. I believe this is universally true in most instances of this form of infringement.
FWIW to the NNA (non-north americans), the RIAA/MPAA and friends have been showing commercials that feature lines such as "You wouldn't steal candy. You wouldn't steal clothes. Etc... So why would you steal music/movies?"
I believe the distinction is very important even if it is only semantic. Both may arguably be somehow immoral, but as we tend to dictate punishment based on the degree of immorality, to equate assault with murder would certainly be a mistake and this equation of digital piracy with theft is no different.
I am Jack's elitist eleoma
April 27th, 2006 9:45am