TheChimp Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Entitlement is indemic. Did you not understand that your avatar is an Orangutan? Sorry, I couldn't resist... Very few of the avatars I have chosen for myself are actual chimpanzees.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to. Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it." I agree ... If something is wrong, plain and simple, it's just wrong.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I agree ... If something is wrong, plain and simple, it's just wrong. Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 It's a judgment I choose to make. Rich people don't need my money, I need my money. The ever popular "eat the rich" mentality. I'm sorry, but news flash ... the poorest of the poor in North America and Europe are far richer that the vast majority of everyone else, everywhere else.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 The ever popular "eat the rich" mentality. I'm sorry, but news flash ... the poorest of the poor in North America and Europe are far richer that the vast majority of everyone else, everywhere else. What's your point.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc. I disagree. Do you think the people that are committing crime and / or conflict (conflict is usually brought on and encouraged by people in a leadership position who want something and who know how to get it ... by using people and that is wrong) don't think it is wrong? As for debate that is not right or wrong in the same way ... debate is good as it is a disagreement on some issue or other not disagreement as to right and wrong. What's your point. You're rich to a vast majority of the planet's population.
TheChimp Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc. Soilent Green is people!!!
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I disagree. Do you think the people that are committing crime and / or conflict (conflict is usually brought on and encouraged by people in a leadership position who want something and who know how to get it ... by using people and that is wrong) don't think it is wrong? As for debate that is not right or wrong in the same way ... debate is good as it is a disagreement on some issue or other not disagreement as to right and wrong. You're rich to a vast majority of the planet's population. As far as your first portion, yes, I believe many criminals do not believe what they do is wrong. Human beings are rational or at least limited rational creatures. We are capable of balancing the costs and benefits of our actions. Take an example of a mother trying to feed or clothe her child. She may be poor, working two jobs, and still not be able to afford food off of what the government provides. So she can justify stealing food or diapers because in her mind what she is doing is no longer wrong. Once you've made the decision to commit any kind of crime, you have inherently decided that this crime is the correct choice. It might be wrong in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the individual. Your second point still needs clarification, because as it stands it makes no sense with the current discussion. Soilent Green is people!!! And it's delicious.
shrader Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it." Doesn't iTunes allow you to save files across X number of devices? I see where you're going with this, but if they're being shared within a household it's really no different than one kid borrowing another's cd.
billsrcursed Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 How can that possibly be the argument? Someone spent time and money to produce a broadcast. How can they possibly not have the right to sell it how and when they see fit, and not to have it stolen from them? OK, you wouldn't sneak into the game. If someone drilled a hole in the roof, snaked a camera in there and ran a cable to your house, would you watch it? Would you feel entitled to watch it? If there was a new book in the bookstore that cost $25 that you wanted to read, and someone offered to photocopy it for you and bind it so that it was pretty close to the actual book, would you think that was OK? So...you get to decide when the content owner has made enough money on something, and when they've crossed that threshold, it's OK to help yourself? I know this sounds judgmental, and I apologize for that. We all have our areas in which we cut corners or rationalize things. But I don't think these rationales (not just yours) intellectually hold water. I think intellectual property is property, and taking someone else's property is just that -- no more, no less. Now this goes along way towards justifying taking matters into one's own hands. I truly understand what you're saying, I do. Your scenarios just aren't the same as watching an already made available broadcast, IMO. Its no different than me inviting 15-20 friends over to watch the game, again just my opinion.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 As far as your first portion, yes, I believe many criminals do not believe what they do is wrong. Human beings are rational or at least limited rational creatures. We are capable of balancing the costs and benefits of our actions. Take an example of a mother trying to feed or clothe her child. She may be poor, working two jobs, and still not be able to afford food off of what the government provides. So she can justify stealing food or diapers because in her mind what she is doing is no longer wrong. Once you've made the decision to commit any kind of crime, you have inherently decided that this crime is the correct choice. It might be wrong in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the individual. Your second point still needs clarification, because as it stands it makes no sense with the current discussion. As to your first point ... I can see that rational as you outlined it, but deep down I would think that person still knows right from wrong. Truce, OK. :wub: My second point addresses your assertion that ... "Rich people don't need my money, I need my money". I took that to mean that you do not see yourself as rich, but in reality you are very rich as compared with the vast majority of the planet's population. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It certainly would not be the first time I have ever misunderstood someone's point in a discussion.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I don't really care if someone is pirating a broadcast. Well, I would care if it was *my* broadcast. But really, the issue is well covered in copyright and trademark law. And there is nothing grey about it. If you are the trademark (or copyright) owner of an electronic media then you get to set the terms in which people can use it. If you are going to obtain and use someone else's copyright/trademarked E-media in a way they haven't authorized I won't judge you. But it is pretty darned silly to try and rationalize it as OK when clearly there is plenty of precedent and law that indicates otherwise. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use whether it is a song, video, automobile, or patented design.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 As to your first point ... I can see that rational as you outlined it, but deep down I would think that person still knows right from wrong. Truce, OK. :wub: My second point addresses your assertion that ... "Rich people don't need my money, I need my money". I took that to mean that you do not see yourself as rich, but in reality you are very rich as compared with the vast majority of the planet's population. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It certainly would not be the first time I have ever misunderstood someone's point in a discussion. :thumbsup: I understand that I am rich by comparison, but my richness is relative to the economic structure I live in. My decision to stick it to loaded pop musicians by not buying their music (that I generally don't like or see any value in purchasing) is relative to where I stand in relation to them. They do not need my money. Just like a sheik doesn't need a poor Iranian's rice dinner. I'll spend my money supporting local restaurants where I know the wait staff appreciates my tips, or supporting a local musician who uses the cover charge to buy strings for his guitar. I recognize not only how fortunate I am, but that there are places where I think my money is better spent when I do spend it. Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them.
TheChimp Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I haven't played Scruples in a long time, but this would make a great question.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 :thumbsup: I understand that I am rich by comparison, but my richness is relative to the economic structure I live in. My decision to stick it to loaded pop musicians by not buying their music (that I generally don't like or see any value in purchasing) is relative to where I stand in relation to them. They do not need my money. Just like a sheik doesn't need a poor Iranian's rice dinner. I'll spend my money supporting local restaurants where I know the wait staff appreciates my tips, or supporting a local musician who uses the cover charge to buy strings for his guitar. I recognize not only how fortunate I am, but that there are places where I think my money is better spent when I do spend it. Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them. And that is fine and dandy. But none of this makes it "right" or "OK". At the end of the day it is still unauthorized use. If you are OK with it then don't color it as something else.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 :thumbsup: I understand that I am rich by comparison, but my richness is relative to the economic structure I live in. My decision to stick it to loaded pop musicians by not buying their music (that I generally don't like or see any value in purchasing) is relative to where I stand in relation to them. They do not need my money. Just like a sheik doesn't need a poor Iranian's rice dinner. I'll spend my money supporting local restaurants where I know the wait staff appreciates my tips, or supporting a local musician who uses the cover charge to buy strings for his guitar. I recognize not only how fortunate I am, but that there are places where I think my money is better spent when I do spend it. Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them. I understand your reasoning, but ... Lets agree to disagree on the bottom line point then. :wub:
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 And that is fine and dandy. But none of this makes it "right" or "OK". At the end of the day it is still unauthorized use. If you are OK with it then don't color it as something else. That is simply your moral opinion. My perception of right and wrong is different. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Maybe I think requiring authorization is wrong? I understand your reasoning, but ... Lets agree to disagree on the bottom line point then. :wub: This I am fine with. :beer:
nfreeman Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I truly understand what you're saying, I do. Your scenarios just aren't the same as watching an already made available broadcast, IMO. Its no different than me inviting 15-20 friends over to watch the game, again just my opinion. Respectfully, I think it is different. The cable company sells you the signal fully aware that you might invite your friends over to watch the game. That is part of the bundle of rights you are buying. However, you are NOT buying the right to invite people over and charge admission, and you are not buying the right to re-broadcast their broadcast. Both of those restrictions are included in the contract for cable service that you signed. I think Weave says it very well... I don't really care if someone is pirating a broadcast. Well, I would care if it was *my* broadcast. But really, the issue is well covered in copyright and trademark law. And there is nothing grey about it. If you are the trademark (or copyright) owner of an electronic media then you get to set the terms in which people can use it. If you are going to obtain and use someone else's copyright/trademarked E-media in a way they haven't authorized I won't judge you. But it is pretty darned silly to try and rationalize it as OK when clearly there is plenty of precedent and law that indicates otherwise. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use whether it is a song, video, automobile, or patented design. And that is fine and dandy. But none of this makes it "right" or "OK". At the end of the day it is still unauthorized use. If you are OK with it then don't color it as something else. That is simply your moral opinion. My perception of right and wrong is different. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Maybe I think requiring authorization is wrong? Again, how can this be? If you owned a store and someone shoplifted your merchandise, and they said that their theft was only "wrong" under the store-owner's moral code, but not under the thief's moral code, you wouldn't take their position seriously, would you? My point is simply that while certainly different people may have different values, that only goes so far.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Respectfully, I think it is different. The cable company sells you the signal fully aware that you might invite your friends over to watch the game. That is part of the bundle of rights you are buying. However, you are NOT buying the right to invite people over and charge admission, and you are not buying the right to re-broadcast their broadcast. Both of those restrictions are included in the contract for cable service that you signed. I think Weave says it very well... Again, how can this be? If you owned a store and someone shoplifted your merchandise, and they said that their theft was only "wrong" under the store-owner's moral code, but not under the thief's moral code, you wouldn't take their position seriously, would you? My point is simply that while certainly different people may have different values, that only goes so far. That example is accurate but it continues to prove my point. Perception of right and wrong is not the same as what we define legally to be right and wrong. Challenging legal definitions is not a bad thing. Imagine if the perception of the right and wrong of marijuana possession was as severe as the actual legal definition?
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 That example is accurate but it continues to prove my point. Perception of right and wrong is not the same as what we define legally to be right and wrong. Challenging legal definitions is not a bad thing. Imagine if the perception of the right and wrong of marijuana possession was as severe as the actual legal definition? If I remember correctly your girlfriend is the artist that did Eleven's avatar, right? How do you think it would affect her if folks decided to use her artwork without compensating her? And does it really matter if she were already very wealthy? That is simply your moral opinion. My perception of right and wrong is different. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Maybe I think requiring authorization is wrong? This I am fine with. :beer: What moral opinion did I make? Unauthorized use is very well defined.
NoVASabresFan Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 As far as your first portion, yes, I believe many criminals do not believe what they do is wrong. Human beings are rational or at least limited rational creatures. We are capable of balancing the costs and benefits of our actions. Take an example of a mother trying to feed or clothe her child. She may be poor, working two jobs, and still not be able to afford food off of what the government provides. So she can justify stealing food or diapers because in her mind what she is doing is no longer wrong. Once you've made the decision to commit any kind of crime, you have inherently decided that this crime is the correct choice. It might be wrong in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the individual. It seems that your definition of what is right is based on the threshold of getting caught. Every criminal evaluates their risk of consequence vs the benefit of the crime, but I would be interested in your examples of "many criminals [who] do not believe what they do is wrong". Regardless of my moral view on the right/wrong issue of whether or not to watch pirated game streams, I believe that you might change your tune about it if there was a risk of getting caught. But since there's zero risk to you, you somehow call that action "right." Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them. You're associating the action of theft of television broadcast to the inaction of not buying a Coldplay album? That doesn't even make sense.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 If I remember correctly your girlfriend is the artist that did Eleven's avatar, right? How do you think it would affect her if folks decided to use her artwork without compensating her? And does it really matter if she were already very wealthy? What moral opinion did I make? Unauthorized use is very well defined. I think the realm in which this situation occurs is important. When you display work in a digital format there is little recourse for its reuse regardless of authorization. My girlfriend understands that when she posts her work to the internet that there is a good chance it will be used without her permission. There is no way for her to regulate that. The NHL assumes a similar risk. If they wish to provide web streams of NHL games, they have to accept that it will be restreamed and they wont see any of the money that viewers would otherwise provide them. If Eleven stumbled across that Perreault image on my girlfriend's blog without knowing it he could just as easily have used it. But since it was commissioned by him he understands he has permission to use it and has similarly given her credit. But he doesn't have to do that. He does because he knows the source. Anyone could use that image. That is the risk she has accepted by posting it to her blog. Unauthorized use might be a legal definition of right and wrong, your belief in it is a moral opinion. That is the difference here.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I think the realm in which this situation occurs is important. When you display work in a digital format there is little recourse for its reuse regardless of authorization. My girlfriend understands that when she posts her work to the internet that there is a good chance it will be used without her permission. There is no way for her to regulate that. The NHL assumes a similar risk. If they wish to provide web streams of NHL games, they have to accept that it will be restreamed and they wont see any of the money that viewers would otherwise provide them. If Eleven stumbled across that Perreault image on my girlfriend's blog without knowing it he could just as easily have used it. But since it was commissioned by him he understands he has permission to use it and has similarly given her credit. But he doesn't have to do that. He does because he knows the source. Anyone could use that image. That is the risk she has accepted by posting it to her blog. Unauthorized use might be a legal definition of right and wrong, your belief in it is a moral opinion. That is the difference here. I'm curious, is it equally OK to steal a piece of Dubble Bubble from big bad Walmart? They put it right out in the checkout aisle. Surely they have accepted that some of it will be filched and they won't see the money from it, right?
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 It seems that your definition of what is right is based on the threshold of getting caught. Every criminal evaluates their risk of consequence vs the benefit of the crime, but I would be interested in your examples of "many criminals [who] do not believe what they do is wrong". Regardless of my moral view on the right/wrong issue of whether or not to watch pirated game streams, I believe that you might change your tune about it if there was a risk of getting caught. But since there's zero risk to you, you somehow call that action "right." You're associating the action of theft of television broadcast to the inaction of not buying a Coldplay album? That doesn't even make sense. On the latter part I was unclear, I was implying that theoretically I would have illegally downloaded the album rather than purchase it. On the first part, I believe that acceptance of the risk of getting caught is a way of reinforcing the perception of right and wrong. If I accept that I will be caught for stealing, I have decided that what I am doing is right regardless of the legal definition and the potential punishment.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 On the latter part I was unclear, I was implying that theoretically I would have illegally downloaded the album rather than purchase it. On the first part, I believe that acceptance of the risk of getting caught is a way of reinforcing the perception of right and wrong. If I accept that I will be caught for stealing, I have decided that what I am doing is right regardless of the legal definition and the potential punishment. No. What you have decided is that the risk is less than the benefit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.