darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 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? Sure. If you've accepted that the risk of getting caught stealing a piece of gum is worth it, then you believe that your theft of that gum is not wrong.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Sure. If you've accepted that the risk of getting caught stealing a piece of gum is worth it, then you believe that your theft of that gum is not wrong. You are badly confusing risk/reward with value judgements. Surely anyone older than about 10 knows stealing the gum is wrong. The thief has decided that the benefit outweighs the risk.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 You are badly confusing risk/reward with value judgements. Surely anyone older than about 10 knows stealing the gum is wrong. The thief has decided that the benefit outweighs the risk. Right, but that value judgment is part of the risk/reward decision process.
nfreeman 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? How does it prove your point? Would anyone seriously argue that the shoplifter was right? I don't disagree that challenging legal definitions is useful. In the digital rights context, though, this issue has been challenged, discussed and litigated repeatedly, and a fairly well settled body of law has developed. That's why quite a few US and offshore filesharing/piracy/torrent sites have been shut down and their operators prosecuted. You may not agree that intellectual property is the same as other types of property, but that doesn't make it OK to take it. And this is where the moral relativism argument hits the wall -- when enough people have decided that something is wrong, the individual doesn't get to do it and then justify it by saying he disagrees with the determination that it's wrong. Now, he can still do it, and that doesn't mean he's a bad person (unless it's a much more serious crime), but rationalizing it via moral relativism doesn't work. IMHO, of course. 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. I think he means he might download the Coldplay album without paying for it. 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. Does a car dealership assume a risk that people who test-drive their cars will take off and never come back? Or do they deal with that risk as an operational matter, prosecute the offenders and generally try to minimize the risk?
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Right, but that value judgment is part of the risk/reward decision process. What value judgement?
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 How does it prove your point? Would anyone seriously argue that the shoplifter was right? I don't disagree that challenging legal definitions is useful. In the digital rights context, though, this issue has been challenged, discussed and litigated repeatedly, and a fairly well settled body of law has developed. That's why quite a few US and offshore filesharing/piracy/torrent sites have been shut down and their operators prosecuted. You may not agree that intellectual property is the same as other types of property, but that doesn't make it OK to take it. And this is where the moral relativism argument hits the wall -- when enough people have decided that something is wrong, the individual doesn't get to do it and then justify it by saying he disagrees with the determination that it's wrong. Now, he can still do it, and that doesn't mean he's a bad person (unless it's a much more serious crime), but rationalizing it via moral relativism doesn't work. IMHO, of course. I think he means he might download the Coldplay album without paying for it. Does a car dealership assume a risk that people who test-drive their cars will take off and never come back? Or do they deal with that risk as an operational matter, prosecute the offenders and generally try to minimize the risk? I think the hypothetical could be argued that stealing the music wasn't wrong. He would lose in a court of law of course, but that isn't important to him. He believed he wasn't wrong at the time of the theft. And of course repentance is a whole different side that I wont get into. I'm also agreeing with you that it is not OK to take someone's property. The law makes it so and in general my moral beliefs support that notion. In the case of the web streams, I don't believe it's wrong at this time. In the car dealership example, I see your point. I think that the dealership accepts the risk of their cars being stolen and they implement procedures to counter that. Insurace, making sure a salesman accompanies test drives, etc. But they learned from past experinces where thefts in this vein did occur and the law could easily adapt to the situation. The digital usage issue is tough to enforce, and the risk of its provision and use is unknown to most. The moral decision is almost the only thing that dictates the decision to participate at this time. I'm sure in the future that the legal system will catch up, but in the mean time it is tough to argue against it beyond a moral ground. What value judgement? The value judgment of what the individual believes is right and wrong.
Neo Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 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. You are exactly right. It's called family sharing. It's why I have Justin Bieber on my iPad and why my daughter has Kool and the Gang. My point is that it's all purchased and shared under the terms the seller offers. I see a lot of what the philosophers call moral relativism and rationalizing here. Actually, it's everywhere. I avoided the emotionally loaded word "stealing" earlier. Taking what someone makes available for a fee, because you can and because you want to, and rationalizing that it doesn't hurt them, or applying moral relativity and saying that it doesn't matter if it hurts them or not because they're rich, is stealing. It's simply stealing from a rich person because it won't affect them materially. Last point - it affects us all in the price paid by legitimate purchasers. Music is more expensive because of pirates, insurance is more expensive because of frauds, merchandise is more expensive because of shoplifters. "It hurts no one" is an intellectually dishonest rationalization. PS. I have done bad things.
Weave Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 The value judgment of what the individual believes is right and wrong. The problem here is that once your action negatively impacts another individual it is no longer the individual alone that can define right and wrong. The impacted parties get a voice as well. Only in an anarchists' wet dream is an action that affects others judged right or wrong solely by the doer. Even the staunchest of Libertarians accept that free will ends when their decision impacts another individual. PS. I have done bad things. PS. I have as well. And I will admit right here and now that I have watched pirated streams of Sabres games as recently as the last NBCSports/Versus Sabres telecast. But, I admit what I am doing. I am watching an unauthorized broadcast. And I am not going to make an excuse for it. It is wrong. I did it. I am not going to rationalize it away as that would be disingenuous of me.
TheChimp Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 I've done bad things, as well. And my 18 hours in lockup made me aware that my life has no room for moral relativism. I suppose if they had cooked us all pancakes and given us free money in lockup I'd think differently. But their hospitality was somewhat lacking and I never, ever want to set foot in there again. I'm getting the sense that people are making arguments from the safety of their computers that they wouldn't be making in the checkout aisle with a security guard standing close by..... And again, I feel tempted to side with d4rk because at the heart of his argument, at least at the beginning of this riveting argument, was the sentiment that these cable companies are rapists and they deserve what they get. But because these corporate raiders have the lawmakers on their side currently, my real fervor lies in getting the lawmakers bodily removed from office and replaced with those who will enforce the laws that would have prevented these corporate raiders from ever becoming as powerful as they are now. My victory will come when Bob's Cable Company gets to supply d4rk's apartment complex.
thesportsbuff Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 How do you guys feel about a NHL Game Center subscriber exploiting another free service to bypass blackout restrictions? Morally wrong? Or just fair?
johnyvegas Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 You should be careful with the word "theft". It means something completely different from what you are using it for. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Brave Ronin Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Long time daily lurker living in Rochester... This discussion is pretty interesting to me right now. I think the debate is larger than just the established laws and I applaud both sides of the debate for doing it rationally. I bought a PS3 last night because I am fed up with TWC. Their service is bad, our DVR box sucks, and I cannot watch the Sabres, which is the only thing I'd say I have to watch. My girlfriend will watch other channels, and we do DVR some shows, but I finally convinced her to try a set top cocktail of PS3 netflix, hulu plus, and NHL Gamecenter Live. I actually support their standing up to MSG, but both of them can go screw because I need both of them to be chummy for me to watch the game on a service I pay 150/mo for. Due to Gamecenter's blackout policy, I cannot watch the Sabres games unless I try to do something like work through a proxy. I would gladly pay for a provider to give me decent resolution broadcasts of Sabres games. Exclusivity has left me one option I choose not to take... I am left with DirecTV, which is my only alternative, has its 2 yr contract, customer service that costs $, and since MSG stiffarmed DISH last year, and TW this year, how far away is DirecTV from a dispute with MSG? I do not think it is worth the risk of once again losing the Sabres in my house and this time be latched into a contract. In terms of consumer choice, what options do we really have? I wouldn't consider myself a 'curse the rich' type thinker, but it is hard to feel like I have any viable free market options in this matter. I guess I strongly feel that I am not being heard, and that it stinks that while two major media entities are fighting over profits I cannot watch my favorite team. You may scoff, but it some ways I consider the streaming as some sort of flimsy protest to the fact I cannot legitimately watch my team fail to get the puck out of their D zone. And to those who quickly scoff when above posters start talking about companies making money- hold up one second. The debate revolves around a hike in the rate that TWC would have to pay which would directly affect the viewers. Successful business leads to successful workers, but my cable bill has jumped over the past year (not due to deals ending) and I have no new content equivalent with those rate hikes. My DVR just bonks out at times. Customer service is time consuming, and hasn't helped much. As a consumer that disgusts me, if it isn't just unfair. To those opposing the streaming, who exactly is suffering from viewing a stream right now? I still have TWC and its broadband, and pay the same as I did before they took the only channel I'd say I have to watch from me. The stream is of much lower quality and provides less additional content (pre and post game show) MSG wants everyone to switch to directV because it will force TWC to cave, raise their rates, and when MSG's contract is up they bone DirecTV as they just did with TWC and Dish in the past. The consumers pay more money for the same content because there is no alternative other than not watching at all. But those who are streaming are the thieves? Itunes, Spotify(jury is still out on this one, but I love it.), netflix, and Steam all prove that many people will pay for a reliable, convenient, quality content delivery model. Until there is a better manner for me to get my television content, as limited as it is, I don't feel guilt in looking for a crappy windowed 15 fps buffalo sabres slideshow. It is the best I can do while two juggernauts slug it out and when victory is finally achieved it won't matter anyway to me because I will be using Gamecenter Live.
fiftyone Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 If anyone has a way to watch the game, could you send me a PM on where to? Thanks and carry on. ^^Nevermind
thesportsbuff Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Honestly, eliminating blackout rules would probably solve 80% of all these streaming issues anyway. As most of us have expressed, we would have no problem paying for NHL GameCenter if we could actually watch our favorite hockey team from in-market. The football rules make a little more sense to me, but imo, the same theory applies. Just put the damn game on TV regardless of whether it sells out or not and nobody will have any reason to "steal" these streams.
TheChimp Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inconceivable!!!! :D
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.