Discussion in 'Politics' started by Singularity, May 3, 2007.
And they shouldn't make laws that people are obligated to break. Screw em
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think we should break all the unjust laws that were imposed on us for profits of few elites.
I agree, and now its time to make a loud noise in one voice and make the lawmakers correct the distorted laws.
When laws are created or amended they are not a result of anarchy but based on rational reasonings. So lets do away with laws that exploit the customers and the artists.
Whos asking u to do anything wrong here, get a grip on yourself. :shrug:
Laws are black and white yes, people are all shades of brown.
I hope this really blooms out to affect other totalitarian corporate schemes.
This is one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on this site yet: "And they shouldn't make laws that people are obligated to break." Nobody obligates anyone to break laws. Those who break the law choose to do so. Or don't you believe in freedom of choice? Plus, it's not as though we're talking about people who stole an apple because they're starving. We're talking about a bunch of dorks who think they should be able to watch the Star Wars prequels and download Metallica albums without paying for them...
Unfortunately, for this thread. The above gem was followed up by this: "I think we should break all the unjust laws that were imposed on us for profits of few elites."
Again, that leads anarchy. And exactly who are these few elites you're talking about? Copyright laws protect anyone and everyone who copyrights their material or produces copyrighted material at their jobs. I'm a journalist and a professional writer. My material is covered, because it is my and my paper's intellectual property, and neither of us work for free or can make do without money. Why should the fruits of my labor be free picking for others simply because someone is clever enough to find out how to steal it? I google my name all the time and come across web sites making money off ads that include material I've written. Is that fair?
Countezero, sick the internet police on us then for speaking out against this GREAT LAW, then!
Oh ya they are a little busy right now...i'm not worried. AND I DO NOT PIRATE STUFF.
Tell me exactly what you think is wrong with copyright laws against piracy?
They're laws that protect private property, something you either believe in or don't. If you don't, then maybe I'll come over and take your lawnmower from your garage. My grass needs cutting.
No you got it wrong countezero, it's:
Last post to you moron.
How about I built the lawnmower from parts from 5 other lawnmowers(somehow they still work), I paid for. You're rent a cop is standing in MY GARAGE TELLING ME I CAN'T DO THAT. I AM ABOUT READY TO KICK HIS NUTS IN.
See? How this kind of thing can create criminals.
This is a logical rebuttal? you make a running lawn more from the parts you already own, your property, not some one else's property, your property, Now you make a Album, from music that is some one else's work, and don't pay for it? and you believe that it is right and just that you take his property for your personnel use and don't pay him for it?
You do something with property that you own?
You do something else with some one else's property and don't pay for it?
There is logic? ----is there logic in this?-----just can't put my finger on this concept?-----Some one else's property with out permission?-----OH! Theft is ok because it is only some ones else's mental work,----Did I get it right?
Buffalo, they think they don't believe in private property rights, but should those rights be taken away and all of their Star Wars DVDs go the way of the Dodo, they'll change their tune...
They're also rabidly anti-corporation. They hate them and want to see them destroyed, not realizing that doing that would eventually only make it more difficult and more expensive to acquire the products they all seem to love to consume.
Not being able to challenge the laws equates to Fascism, those days are a by gone era.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And what about those bunch of bloodsuckers who think they were born to exploit the musicians and consumers because their forefather made laws in their favor ?
Those who get our money instead of us paying the artists directly, growup buddy this is the 21st century.
u invented the words,
u invented their meaning,
u invented the incidents from scratch,
u invented the elements in your work,
u invented the paper,
u invented the ink,
Infact u came from a entirely different planet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then stop writing.
When machines were invented people complained about loss of jobs, so why didnt they stop them ? :shrug:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Singular, I don't believe I ever said you couldn't challenge the law. Please, if that's what you want to do, go ahead and challenge. Laws are challenged in court all the time and people can lobby lawmakers to change laws all the time. That's the glory of the American Republic. What I said is that if you (and every other like-minded person) simply stop obeying the laws you don't like, then society unravels and our system ceases to function. Also, challenging something is very different than ignoring it...
I don't remember ever arguing for exploitation, either. I argued in favor of protecting copyrights. I fail to see how stealing, which is a form of exploitation if you think about it, is justifiable simply because you think you have determined musicians are being "exploited."
Those elites "who get our money instead of us paying the artists directly," are absolutely necessary for artists, who have no means of mass production or distribution of their own, and never conceivably could, either. Do you think it's possible to make and distribute a $300 million Spider-Man film without Sony? It's not, because as you so aptly put it, this is the "21st century," an age of mass media. The days of artisans carving trinkets for their block in the Roman subura are over. The branding of culture means many people want the same thing, the same CD the same shirt, etc. No one person or small group of people can satisfy that demand without a substantial backing of capital.
And no, I didn't invent any of the items you list, but when I write an article I utilize those tools to produce a unique intellectual product that's mine and mine alone. If someone else wants it, they have to pay me for it. But your solution, which is nonsensical, is for me to "stop writing" simply because I'm not willing to allow my intellectual property to be given away. That argument is akin to telling a bank manager he should quit his job because there are people out there willing to rob what he has the audacity to lock up in the safe every night...
Wow, u sound like an Anti-Revolutionist;
If we dont revolt, then why will anyone care to change laws ?
The corporations first blackmail the artist to sign a contract that gives them fixed amount of money (bloodsucking), over that they have a injustice called "CopyRight" that give an absolute monopoly to charge as they want and as long as they want.
Go ahead distribut them in theaters where its required, but we dont need the exploiters any more http://www.torrentz.com/3d9bcdf19235e06b65c6a1cf700d446ee24734ed
Keep shouting dreamer, u r about to 2 extinct. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Could someone here please explain to me how a couple of characters of hex can be copywritten?
That would make all past and future programing rather difficult.
Intellectual property rights are a thing of the past.
The ones who don't share are the ones that no one will listen to or read.
Science, literature, music depends on people sharing their work.
Exclusivity is the road to oblivion.
No reasonable person would deny the right of multi-trillionaire companies to limit the theft and misuse of their intellectual property. However, it's the sneaky, underhand, overly restrictive (even - in fact, especially - for legal users, what with rootkits and the like) methods they use to achieve their aims that gets people's backs up.
There has always been, and always will be, a battle between giant corporations and the little man over this kind of thing. It's just human nature. Everyone likes something for nothing, and everyone likes to get one over on Megalomaniacs Incorporated. Yes it's illegal, and many would say immoral (though just as many, like me, wouldn't - personally I think these companies are rich enough Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). However, if Sony et al are intent on stopping it maybe they should concentrate first on getting ordinary members of the public on their side, instead of being so goddamn officious about it and pissing off customers and non-customers alike, so that people are just queuing up to rub their noses in it. Ever thought of that? If the pirates are guilty of theft, the people they're stealing from are just as guilty of arrogance, stupidity and blind ignorance of human nature (and thus get everything they deserve).
The same and similar interests have screwed a lot of people out of large and needed portions of their lives, against their wills, against their rights, and at their expense. Screw them.
While some "regulation" might be necessary so that business can conduct business, regulation always goes to far and this is how regulation gets broken. The movie industry didn't collapse when people could copy VCR tapes, and it won't collapse this time, and we don't even know for sure that it hurts their income.
Ever hear of Lulu.com?
Singular, what revolution are you speaking of? The one that demands you be entertained for free? I've explained to you how laws are changed in our society. You either can't understand what I've written or don't care. I suspect it's more the latter, since you don't seem to really be interested in changing anything, as you real goal is to plunder whatever you like whenever you like and then be able to rationalize your immoral and illegal behavior with grandiose claims about corporate greed and exploitation, as if those behaviors (if they are happening) absolve you from judgment. They do not. Corporations can and do behave improperly with regard to artists, but to single out these instances, rare though the may be, and try to broad-brush an entire industry is just silly. Or don't you see these artists on television being rewarded for their work beyond most of humanity's wildest dreams?
Then we get some wonderful remarks like: "Intellectual property rights are a thing of the past," and "The ones who don't share are the ones that no one will listen to or read." What rot! The products that are most in demand are exactly the ones that are the most stolen. Star Wars? The most successful franchise in music history? Anybody ever heard of it? George Lucas, the man who created it, when on a jihad against piracy when the prequels were released. It's not that Lucas didn't want to share his movies, it's that he wanted to get paid for them, something the people on this site seem to fail to understand. If intellectual property rights disappear then the expect intellectual production to drastically decline (a great fictionalized example of this scenario is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged). Why should a person taking the time and spend the capital to produce a piece of intellectual property if he or she is not going to be compensated? The simple answer is they won't. They won't invest the time it takes to write a history or produce a film, because during said productions nobody is making any money, as they expect to be paid later. If they aren't paid later they won't bother precisely because they won't be able to produce in the first place.
Red makes the most sensible and salient points here, and that is the companies need to allow sharing between formats, with the provision that at some point a core product is purchased. This is exactly what Steve Jobs argued for in regards to digital music, and what I think will eventually happen. However, at the end of the day, those companies own those products, and they can release them any way, shape or form they like.
In a broader context, some people in this thread need to consider that legally speaking there is no difference between intellectual property and property. In essence, if you don't respect intellectual property, just because it's something intangible, you don't respect property period. If you really think it's OK to steal music, then by your flawed logic, it's OK for me to take every tangible thing you own: Your house, your car your clothes. Everything...
You're living in the past. The internet has broadened both access and choice.
Separate names with a comma.