1stMay2007 The Day on which Moderation Died

samcdkey

That is what research is for if you are that interested their is a thing called Google, or those self same libraries.................

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In all of those cases, Sam, you're talking about ONE BOOK ...which has been duly paid for according to the applicable copyright laws.

Now ...why don't you talk about you buying a book, then copying it 4,000 times and selling the copies for a nickle? See? That becomes a whole new ball game, don't it? And if you can't see how the author and the publisher are shit out of lots of money, then you're dumber than a box of rocks.

Sam, how would you like it if you wrote a book, had it published by a company, then discovered that everyone was reading it, but there was only one book actually purchased? ....all the rest were copies of that one book. You'd approve of that?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And selling used books is different because?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's still only one book, Sam ...the royalties, etc have already been paid to the author and publisher. Ditto for loaning a book like the library does. No one, not even the authors or publishers ever complain about that.

You're not using your brains, Sam. Try it some time, you might find that you like it more than baiting and being a nasty, American-hater.

Baron Max

 

Its only one book? I've bought and sold thousands of books used and I am sure there are many people who do the same.

 

Thousands of the same book????????

Baron Max

 

I assume that each person is capable of buying a copy of a used book. Multiply that by thousands or millions.

 

No one can be that stupid, Sam, so I'm not even going to bother answering your idiotic, stupid, brainless, foolish, childish, .....question.

Baron Max

 

I agree. Sam you're either trying to wind people up, or you're just one of the daftest people on this site. Furthermore, I think you're searching to find exceptions or difficult scenarios (libraries, used books, etc.) in order to do nothing other than muddy the water to help rationalize and excuse some of positions you've taken in this thread with regard to private property, something you apparently don't agree with and don't think should exist. Why not have the courage to hang it out there and stop hiding behind all this chum you keep sprinkling?

Meta, please explain this ludicrous statement to me: "I am talking about a situation in which the rich actually benefit from the so-called thefts. The more stolen a copyrighted work is the more money it makes."

If people are stealing Spider-man 3 as opposed to paying to go see it in a theater or waiting to buy it on DVD, I fail to see how the studio is making money. It is, in fact, losing money because of those thefts.

 

I'm explaining my position on why I think what I do.

Do you honestly believe that piracy has led to the demise of any artist or industry?

How did Windows become the number one OS? Why not Macintosh, which is infinitely better an OS?

 

Singularity... can you please start making sense. A good start would be to use complete sentenses for expressing an oppinion. Just a thought.

Besides my surprise at a complete sentence from you Singularity, you might want to re-read his posts. Counte has been the most calm and logical person on this thread... just because he spouts logic with the same ease that you spout nonsense doesn't imply that he needs to "chill".

So, you brilliantly confuse selling a "legally" produced and sold copy with STEALING and reselling music for a fraction of the price while providing ZERO royalties. Brilliant.

Again, since the federal government has enshrined lending institutions as a legal way to distribute information to the masses so as to avoid (GASP) theft, it would be totally legal. Not to mention, (here's another doozy) those libraries generally paid for the books... or received the books as a donation from someone who most likely bought them.

So... lend away! It's legal... sell away! That's legal too. Just don't download it illegally or make copies and sell them for profit. See the difference?

(a) marketing
(b) computer geeks like building their own computers... and windows was "the best" or so the MARKETING said so. Piracy had nothing to do with it.

samcdkey-- I can respect your oppinions, but you are acting unusually dense. Selling a used book is the same as pirating software or music? Are you really that ignorant? The difference is simple: one is illegal... and the other isnt. One is respected and allowed by the producers... the other isn't. Debate the merits of the legality all you want, but don't try to sell your bunch of nonsense as if they were the same.

~String

 

OK, so you're saying you are that foolish. Fair enough.

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued a "demise" of an artist or industry has occurred. Rather, people such as myself, are arguing in favor of the integrity of intellectual property rights and copyright laws, and rightly pointing out that the people who ignore them are stealing, a moral problem you continually want to avoid, gloss over or pretend isn't the bottom line issue of all this talk. It is. I fail to see why I must show the demise of an artist or an industry to prove my argument. Banks don't fail when they get knocked off, nor do studios crumble when people sell millions of illicit DVDs. But that's not the point. The point is robbing banks and illicitly profiting from copyrighted material are IMMORAL and ILLEGAL.

Let's cut all the rhetoric shall we?

1. Do you think stealing is OK?

2. Do you think ignoring copyright laws or illegally sharing copyrighted material is OK?

3. Do you believe in the integrity of intellectual property?

Windows success is a larger question and has little to do with this topic, though for the purposes here, I feel compelled to point out that Windows rise to the top has much to do with its multitude of copyrights and contracts. IE: Windows has agreements with major computer companies in which certain machines are sold with Windows. And like most software packages, Windows also is piracy-protected and takes steps to ensure it isn't openly "shared" in vast quantities. So I fail to see why you bring it up. If anything, it bolsters my argument not yours...

 

Ok i have just brought an "Spiderman 3" HDDVD and now i am putting it on the net, for all my friends to get a copy, instead of giving my cd 1 at a time, i decided to put it on torrent and let them all take it at a time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Now i havent made any money on this and i have paid for my CD

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

More mud, more chum.

Why can't you answer the three simple questions that I've asked.

 

Why do u ingnore them when i answer ?

 

You didn't answer them. And this game is getting old. I don't think you've made a logical argument for several thread pages now. All you do is attempt to derail claims made by other people with your random scenarios. In a word, it's pathetic.

 

The truth is u have bored us, whatever u say about laws , its all about a bygone era of exploitation. Start getting a grip on reality.

When i used to get CD at age of 9 or 10, i had to buy the entire album for one song at exorbitant prices, now its my turn to make them bankrupt, bloody bloodsuckers.

They took my piggybank money for too long.

 

How piracy helps Microsoft make billions

 

Once again, the both of you fail to put forward any sort of argument to support your position, choosing instead to fall back on rationalization (Singularity) and trying to find another specific example that muddies the water (Sam). You guys really need to take a class on rhetoric, or at the very least, find a new playbook for your obvious sentiments.

Neither of you have answered my three simple questions. I wonder why that is...

 

Cos they are redundant. If you can justify profits from a book or CD in resale, you have yet to show why it is different from one person buying and sharing music and other work. A different medium (the internet) is insufficient.