This p***es me off

[JungleMan]

Originally posted by aknisely


What are you talking about? I agree with copyright laws.

Oh gee what a great comeback. *yawns*

That's what people say when they can't think of anything to say.

It's like "I know you are but what am I?"



Sorry but think of something more original...

[aknisely]

Oh gee what a great comeback. *yawns*

That's what people say when they can't think of anything to say.

It's like "I know you are but what am I?"

Huh? I don't know how to explain it more clearly than this, so I'll do it in step-by-step, point form.

1) I recognize that the US Congress, and other legislative institutions around the world, have the power to create statutory law in their respective nations.

2) I recognize that they have established, with little variation in spirit, laws to protect intellectual property.

3) I understand that this branch of law, known as copyright law, has a very important and established purpose, and that protection of intellectual property, among other things, is very important to the progression of modern art.

[Here's the kicker. Pay attention, here.]

4) I therefore agree with the copyright laws established by the Government of the United States of America, and the Government of Canada.

[JungleMan]

AK:

So what you're saying is, you actually believe, in your soul, whether there are laws or not, that it is perfectly fine to pay $20 for a CD with about 10 songs on it? Where you living, Mars?

[aknisely]

So what you're saying is, you actually believe, in your soul, whether there are laws or not, that it is perfectly fine to pay $20 for a CD with about 10 songs on it?

Very good. Have a cookie!

[aknisely]

You don't need to tell me this, I know this already. Do you have a point?

No you don't know this. You continually state that the law is telling you how to live, and you therefore have a right not to obey it if your decisions thereof conflict with the law. I am saying that the law does not try to tell you how to live.

Err.. yes there is.

No there isn't. In what greater sense can you use the word "must," other than being required to do something by the law?

[JungleMan]

Originally posted by aknisely


Very good. Have a cookie!

If all the things in your little world works according to the totally corrupted system, fine. but don't tell us to be that way.

You enjoy dishing out $20 for a CD? I don't think so.

So go on, go to your local best buy and get the latest copy-protected CDs for $20 apiece, the rest of us will be changing the world with the power of the Internet.

[HarryW]

'Must' just means being required to do something, not being required to do soemthing by law.

No you don't know this. You continually state that the law is telling you how to live, and you therefore have a right not to obey it if your decisions thereof conflict with the law. I am saying that the law does not try to tell you how to live.

Yes, I do. I never stated anything like the words you are trying to put in my mouth.

It is not a matter of 'having a right' to disobey the law, it's fundamentally not what your decisions are based on. I can't imagine that any sane person would make their decisions purely on the basis of what was legal and illegal. The law is a factor in your decisions, but it is not the cause of your decisions.

'Rights' as we call them are just a made-up, fuzzy concept that has sprouted from civilised society. We are not born with innate rights, we are granted them by whatever legal system we are born into. Rights have nothing to do with personal decisions, it's personal ethics (what you want to do) and potential consequences (what would happen if you did that) that matter.

[HarryW]

'Every man must die.'

That is an ultimate truth. It also has nothing to do with the law.

[aknisely]

If all the things in your little world works according to the totally corrupted system, fine. but don't tell us to be that way.

Stop spouting off your "conformity factory" slogans from the sixties. It isn't going to solve any problems. If you have a problem with your goverrnment, contact your local senator or congressman.

You enjoy dishing out $20 for a CD? I don't think so.

That wasn't your question. Nobody "enjoys" having money leave their pockets. That isn't the issue.

Your question was, "Do you actually believe ... that it is perfectly fine to pay $20 for a CD with about 10 songs on it," to which I reply in affirmation. I believe that the owner of something (be it cars, pencils or intellectual property) has the right to charge whatever he wants for its sale. Being an American, you of all people should understand that.

[aknisely]

Originally posted by HarryW
It is not a matter of 'having a right' to disobey the law, it's fundamentally not what your decisions are based on. I can't imagine that any sane person would make their decisions purely on the basis of what was legal and illegal. The law is a factor in your decisions, but it is not the cause of your decisions.

'Rights' as we call them are just a made-up, fuzzy concept that has sprouted from civilised society. We are not born with innate rights, we are granted them by whatever legal system we are born into. Rights have nothing to do with personal decisions, it's personal ethics (what you want to do) and potential consequences (what would happen if you did that) that matter.

Fine.

What are you trying to accomplish? Most of what you just said is semantics. I don't have to say "legal rights" or "you must, in order to avoid remand or liability from the law" to get my point across. This is all irrelevant to the discussion.

Anyways, I got side-tracked. What is the point, again?

[JungleMan]

Originally posted by aknisely
I believe that the owner of something (be it cars, pencils or intellectual property) has the right to charge whatever he wants for its sale.

The true creator of the music is barely getting 5% of that 20 bucks!!! that's the whole point! the bigwigs have the whole industry wrapped up and they're charging outlandish prices for something so small.

I believe someone else can charge what they want but this is totally uncompetitive.

If I wanted to sell you a computer for $2000, i could do that but someone else could come along and sell a similar computer for $1000.

And if I was selling boxes of Fruit Loops for $100 and my friend was also selling them for $100 and we were the only ones selling Fruit Loops,wouldn't YOU be upset? of course considering you like Fruit Loops

[aknisely]

The true creator of the music is barely getting 5% of that 20 bucks!!!

By "true creator" you mean whose face is on the cover and voice is on the music, right? Do you honestly think that those are the only people that are involved in creating music?

that's the whole point! the bigwigs have the whole industry wrapped up and they're charging outlandish prices for something so small.

So? If you want it, you have to buy it.

I believe someone else can charge what they want but this is totally uncompetitive

Ahh, so you really do agree with copyright law (or maybe you don't, you just haven't mentioned it). You just believe that antitrust is playing a role in the music industry, and that's an entirely different subject.

But how is it uncompetitive? If you don't like the music (or the price thereof) that is published by one record company, go to the next. If you don't find an acceptable price, then perhaps you should lower your pricing standards, or look for music from sources other than professionally published music you find at the mall.

If I wanted to sell you a computer for $2000, i could do that but someone else could come along and sell a similar computer for $1000.

Probably. That's called competitive pricing.

[HarryW]

Fine.

What are you trying to accomplish? Most of what you just said is semantics. I don't have to say "legal rights" or "you must, in order to avoid remand or liability from the law" to get my point across. This is all irrelevant to the discussion.

Anyways, I got side-tracked. What is the point, again?

Well you were telling me I was saygint things I wasn't saying, so I was explaining what I said. You then started with the semantics. So what are you trying to accomplish?

I have really said everything I wanted to say about the topic.

[aknisely]

Alright, in summation, though, your point is as follows:

People should have the ability to reject laws for which the consequences of obstructing are apparently non-existant.

I just want to clarify that, put simply, that is what you've said.

[HarryW]

I'm not saying they should have the ability. They do have the ability.

I am not making suggestions of change here, just statements of the way society is. In my opinion of course; you may have different views on the ways people work.

[aknisely]

Originally posted by goudabuddha
Also, it is written that if a law is very unreasonable to the masses, we have a right to break that law.

That doesn't give you the right to break the law where it's convenient or profitable to do so.

[crpietschmann]

http://www.eff.org/share/petition



Stop the RIAA Lay Suits!

[Shawn N]

You're digging up a post from more than 2 years to post a link to a worthless petition? Gimme a break.

[crptcblade]

What's a lay suit?