Printable View
Yeah i understand that Lou. I was more referring to the last line in the comment (amongst others not quoted). Is just a general opinion of mine that is better to play the ball and not the man. And assuming that there will be strong denials of such practice i will just leave it at that.
Regards
Stuart :)
However, ultimately, what we are discussing has IMMEDIATE implications
toward the owner, no matter the Miner transgressions that us individuals make.
We have seen the BIG CORPS go after fan sites, over and over again, shutting them down while waving the flag of "COPYRIGHT INFRINGENMENT" in the faces of those concerned. The first, Star Trek...The most recent, Harry Potter.
Wether or not you take the question that started this thread seriously, even the smallest transgression of any of us individuals COULD shut the whole site down....
BUT, thats my opinion. Whats Yours?
Of course, some CORPS have altered their initial perception of
fan adolation, and how they acheive it, to understand that it only advances
their product. BUT, thats only an "Official" allowance of exceptional activity.
If I use "Bruce Wayne" as an AVATAR here at VBWorld, Could VBWorld be Legally Shut Down, if they DON'T advise that such a usage of a Copyrighted image is not sanctioned here, etc..., and the parant of the image decides to apply legal action?
-Lou
We are talking principles here. So, the level of violation has little to do with the fact of violation. You (among others) are attempting to lay down the principle of property as being one that requires respect only if required to avoid hurting someone [we won't discuss the level of hurt which requires your moral notice]. Otherwise you can disrespect property at will.Quote:
Originally posted by rEaL iGoR
Really. Come on. We're not talking about rape here. We're talking about animted GIFs.
I contend that such a principle isn't a principle of property at all and it is not a principle for which you can create a consistent, i.e. universal, law about. That is to say that your principle only works when the opposite rule is generally followed, here that people generally respect the rights of copyright holders.
The reason for this is that it is the general respect for property which encourages the production of valuable property without which those following the thief's principle would not be able to steal. Without the first principle obtaining generally, the latter principle could not exist at all. That a 'law' can only exist as the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself, is the litmus test of unethical action.
It hurts the copyright holder who has an exclusive right to the property which is now not exclusive because you feel no compuction in stealing his work. You never asked for permission, you are disrespecting him and his rights. Worse, you don't even see anything wrong with doing that, adding insult to injury. Harry W. wants to say that you wouldn't have paid for the right anyway (for all the difference that would make), but that is a very thorny issue.Quote:
I don't have the need to steal anything. It's just that if you like a cartoon and you find a nice picture of it on the web, who would it actualoly hurt if you used him as an avatar on VBforums.
First, Harry W. cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that a person's assessment of what he will or will not pay for an item is unrelated to the fact that the item is freely available on the black market for nothing but the time of day it takes to download it. I think this is an overly optimistic view of human nature. Certainly pays no lip service to supply and demand. This principle of 'pay for what you can afford and take the rest', even if it was conscionable in the first place, is impossible to apply as a principle. 'What I can afford' is a complex algorithm that is based on the relative perceived need and price of all the desired acquicistions in our lives. There are compromises and trade-offs we make based on relative prices and desires. 'Freely available' changes all that. Items which are 'freely available' drop out of the calculus. The long and short of it is: if I don't have to pay for my music (or any part of it) then I can 'afford' more of the other stuff which I do have to pay for. So, the whole formula collapses since 'afford' has to do with the prices I have to pay for things. It is all relative and a 'freely' available item is overwhelmed by the things we have to pay for. The only thing which prevents this collapse would be my own conscience that stealing is wrong, but of course, this is not the case. The only thing which is wrong is that which hurts people, since stealing music hurts no one it cannot be an ethical problem. Thus, we should steal all of our music.
So, I wonder at the scuples Harry W. puts forward, especially that anyone other than him scruples that way. If I do not have to pay for the music, then why would I? Especially when I see nothing wrong with stealing it? Of course, Harry W. would say that stealing when you could afford to pay is wrong, but 'afford' is so relative to the cost of things as not to be a restraint at all. A principle which cannot be applied is not a principle at all. I just have so many movies and concerts to go to, I simply can't afford to pay for my music. We all know the squeaky wheel gets the oil and the wheel that squeaks here is stuff I can't get out of paying for. Those are things I have to pay for and so the 'free' stuff gets pushed further and further down the list of 'affordability'. Funny, it seems I always run out of cash before I get around to paying for music these days. I only wish things were different.
Quote:
I'm not a lawyer or anything near it. In fact, I hate ethics.
Perhaps this says it all. You hate ethics? You hate being ethical? Glad I don't hang around with you. You're could be dangerous.
Quote:
I just think you should listen to your councience and do whatever you find more law-abiding. I'm just thinking about how serious your crime is.
I would say that the action which conforms with the law is the more law-abiding, no need to resort to conscience there. Again, this principle that non-serious crimes are perfectly fine to commit is a pretty strange concept. If people only obeyed laws which would be serious crimes if disobeyed, then we really would have few laws. One can always minimize the harm. What is the harm of you running the red light this time. The intersection is empty, so not much, right? Well, what if everyone ran red lights when they thought the intersection was empty? Does it make it any better that people use their own judgement regarding when it was okay to run red lights? Isn't that what we often do have anyway? And don't we bemoan and berate these people who don't think the law applies to them? Maybe it's just me.
Perhaps Harry W. is right. Perhaps we should all decide when and where the law applies to us. But why have law at all? Why have copyright at all? If people can 'afford' to pay for things then they will pay for them, then why isn't that good enough? People are honest and follow their conscience as to what is most 'law-abiding', nicht wahr? I mean most people on Napster were just like Harry W., right, taking just that which they couldn't afford.
Why the smilies? What is the difference? Is there a difference? Harry W. would say not if you would not pay for the software anyway (again, how do we know unless we deny access if you don't pay?). I admit I was a little surprised that ostensible/possible software authors would hold such opinions. Certainly I have seen no more than token support for my 'side' of things. That should be telling, I suspect. Not being a software author myself, I should defer to you all in this. In any case, my hat is off to you all as your position seems mighty magnanimous all things considered. I am happy to know that you will not rue the day that such 'logic' is applied to your 'property'. I know I would feel otherwise, so it is better I never become one.Quote:
And by the Way, WareZ RULEZ!:D :D :D
cypherx
Hey! LTNS
-Lou
Whats LTNS mean?
Long time no see, i expect but check with AcroMan (Jim Brown) for confirmation :pQuote:
Whats LTNS mean?
Speaking as one of the 'tokens' ...Quote:
Certainly I have seen no more than token support for my 'side' of things.
I must say that as a professional software writer I am most concerned at the theft or misuse of my intellectual property. I pay decent money for different forms of onsite and program security and yet look, i am effectively a hypocrite (a smiling one at least!) cos i have a Wallace face as my avatar. But he is just sooo cute so I am gonna keep him until i get a formal letter. PS Go rent or buy a Wallace & Gromit video - they are hilarious. (Brownie points from Messrs Aardman & co?)
Regards
Stuart
Good Call, BeachBum!
Thats exactly what I Meant.
:D :D :D
-Lou
Hmm seems my name has come up in sentences including emotive words again. Sigh.
I could try using big words and stuff but I'm just not that energetic.
supercalifragilisticexpialidotious
I am confused by your defintion of 'emotive' in the phrase 'emotive words'.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Hmm seems my name has come up in sentences including emotive words again. Sigh.
I could try using big words and stuff but I'm just not that energetic.
Here are the references to your positions in my post:
"Harry W. wants to say that you wouldn't have paid for the right anyway (for all the difference that would make), but that is a very thorny issue."
"First, Harry W. cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that a person's assessment of what he will or will not pay for an item is unrelated to the fact that the item is freely available on the black market for nothing but the time of day it takes to download it. I think this is an overly optimistic view of human nature. Certainly pays no lip service to supply and demand. This principle of 'pay for what you can afford and take the rest', even if it was conscionable in the first place, is impossible to apply as a principle."
"So, I wonder at the scuples Harry W. puts forward, especially that anyone other than him scruples that way. [...] Of course, Harry W. would say that stealing when you could afford to pay is wrong, but 'afford' is so relative to the cost of things as not to be a restraint at all."
"Perhaps Harry W. is right. Perhaps we should all decide when and where the law applies to us."
"Harry W. would say not if you would not pay for the software anyway (again, how do we know unless we deny access if you don't pay?)."
Where are the emotive words exactly? What is an emotive word exactly, as you see it? I think I have described your positions factually using factual words. I could have made these points without mentioning your name, but I didn't want to snub you by referring to you without using your name. That would be rude, I think.
To avoid this problem, if necessary, in the future, I will simply say: "It has been mentioned before in this thread that...." I don't think I could neuter it much more than that. Sorry.
I know this was off-topic, but the whining [Now there's an emotive word, e.g. it describes an emotion.] was annoying to me. And I do think your post has crossed the line into whining, sorry. This is not intended as a flame. But one should simply drop threads one is not interested in replying to. That would be the mature thing to do rather than disparage someone simply because they attached your name to your position in a post, i.e., gave credit where credit was due.
Oddly, that is really what this thread is all about: misappropriation.
cypherx
Whoa, calm down. Wasn't meant to be disparaging, but if you took it that way I apologise.
I was sighing because this thread has become tedious. Normally I would hope to gain some insight into other opinions from this kind of thing but the evidence suggests that you're not learning anything new from me and I'm not learning anything new from you. We've stated our opinions (repeatedly) and there's nowhere else productive to go with it.