Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Doc Johnson · 09-22-2006 01:01 PM

The thing is, I don't accept your first premise: That information that ends up in the public domain, by whatever means, belongs to anyone in particular. Legally, it might. But legality is a consensus between ruler and those ruled. I don't buy into that consensus. If an artist wants to make money, then they need to hit the road, perform, etc. They serve their fans, rather than ripping them off. Big diff between punk and metal in the 1980s was just that. Apparently it still persists.

I also don't accept that the system you are defending is the same thing as the artist. Many "successful" artists owe their popularity to their labels, and the gigantic media conglomerates who own them. If I could pay the artist directly, I would, assuming I want their music that much. In fact, I do buy a lot of merch at shows, including CDs. But I probably would pay a fair price. Not $15 or more for a single CD. Moreover, the songs on that hypothetical CD probably wouldn't consist of one or two "hits" and a bunch of sucky crap I don't want. There would be no shitty power ballads. No filler crap. I'd get what he band wanted on the album, not what some A&R puke thought would "hit" with the target demographic. I wouldn't be paying for the label's overhead. I wouldn't be paying for expensive payola style promotion.

If something is in the public domain, and a band is too fucking lazy, stupid, or whatever else to promote it themselves, then why should that obligation fall to the consumer? The safety of artists and industry should be not hindrance to innovation in the marketplace. Free markets go both ways, right? The failure of the industry to adapt to the market benefits the consumer. Give that you call yourself a libertarian, I'd think that would be your wet dream. So, why do you not support free markets in this VERY libertarian sense. Given you also call yourself a Satanist, whatever happened to "An it harm no one, do what thou will"? I contend that the new model of distribution that free downloading provides has the potential to float all boats. Certainly, if tax cuts are good for the economy, flat taxes are better, and the abolition of the IRS best, then my very modest proposal is small potatoes. Indeed, it seems that it would be better, since is helps to insulate the consumer from the predatory practices or large economic blocs workign in collusion to undermine the workings of market forces. Surely, as a libertarian, you are not attempting to justify Big Government intrusion on the market?

Further, you forget how much word of mouth marketing serves the industry. In what ways do consumers get compensated for their labor in that regard? I don't recall prices going down, nor do I detect any two way flow in any way shape or form. It's not a market in that sense. It's an oligarchy that supports a plutocracy.

In fact, most of the stuff I download isn't even in print anymore. Am I depriving the artist because I don't pay ten times the original price on EBay? No, I don't. They wouldn't get the money anyway. In fact, most of them would be unknown without fans like me: People who have been trading their music, turning others onto it, and so forth.

They system you describe does not serve the hardworking artists, at least the majority of them. It serves manure spewing wretches like Clay Aiken and Brittany Spears. You are left in a quandry: Who owns the pussy, the pimp or the whore? If you're not a whore, you don't need a pimp. If I'm getting the pussy for free, I don't need either a pimp or a whore.

09-22-2006 01:11 PM

ChaosSplintered Wrote:There is very little difference between physical and scientific in actualization. You see, theories, and the laws that are derived from theories, represent qualities that can be repeatedly tested in the tangible world.

You can't compare physical and scientific laws. We don't know what the physical laws are and if we will ever find them. It's falsification. I can know that things are false but I can never be completely sure that scientific laws are true.

Also as I said before, you cannot steal information.

1) Stealing is depriving another of something they own without their permission.
2) Ideas and information are copyed without depriving others or the creator of it.
3) Therefore if you copy information it isn't stealing.

You may be able to own it, but stealing it is impossible.

Doc Johnson Wrote:Given you also call yourself a Satanist, whatever happened to "An it harm no one, do what thou will"?

Those are Wiccans. Satanists are egotists.

R00t · 09-22-2006 01:39 PM

You can argue Satanism is purely hedonistic, do what you want.

But, to contradict that, I would cite one of the Satanic rules:
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
I don't see labels crying for their music to be taken.
If they do, I'll gladly take it.

Doc Johnson Wrote:Legally, it might. But legality is a consensus between ruler and those ruled.

In which case, any arguement for legality, goes right out the window.
I don't like how the law is run for X scenario, so I'm not going to abide by it.

Quote:I also don't accept that the system you are defending is the same thing as the artist. Many "successful" artists owe their popularity to their labels, and the gigantic media conglomerates who own them. If I could pay the artist directly, I would, assuming I want their music that much. In fact, I do buy a lot of merch at shows, including CDs. But I probably would pay a fair price. Not $15 or more for a single CD. Moreover, the songs on that hypothetical CD probably wouldn't consist of one or two "hits" and a bunch of sucky crap I don't want. There would be no shitty power ballads. No filler crap. I'd get what he band wanted on the album, not what some A&R puke thought would "hit" with the target demographic. I wouldn't be paying for the label's overhead. I wouldn't be paying for expensive payola style promotion.

Okay. The entire amount of this thread amounted to what you "Do".

Sure, Artists may owe their popularity to their labels, but then who is the causation of this? The artist or the label? The artist and the label? The people who bought the CD?

Quote:If something is in the public domain, and a band is too fucking lazy, stupid, or whatever else to promote it themselves, then why should that obligation fall to the consumer? The safety of artists and industry should be not hindrance to innovation in the marketplace. Free markets go both ways, right? The failure of the industry to adapt to the market benefits the consumer.

Who said it had to fall on the consumer? It can fall on the media (MTV, VH1), the press (Any music magazine out there), or even the label itself.

Quote:Give that you call yourself a libertarian, I'd think that would be your wet dream. So, why do you not support free markets in this VERY libertarian sense.

Never said for this debate I was taking the Liberatarian scenario. (I.E. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Otherwise, it's really no fun, because the monotony pretty much comes back to this: http://cristgaming.com/pirate.swf [christgaming.com]. Atleast this spices it up a bit.)

Quote:I contend that the new model of distribution that free downloading provides has the potential to float all boats. Certainly, if tax cuts are good for the economy, flat taxes are better, and the abolition of the IRS best, then my very modest proposal is small potatoes.

And this new model of distrobution is where?

Quote:Indeed, it seems that it would be better, since is helps to insulate the consumer from the predatory practices or large economic blocs workign in collusion to undermine the workings of market forces. Surely, as a libertarian, you are not attempting to justify Big Government intrusion on the market?

Nope. Once again, I'm not arguing this from a libertarian point of view. I'm arguing this, for the sake of arguing.

Why does no one ever think of this? I don't neccesarily have to actually believe what I'm arguing, I just have to be able to argue it! From my standards, I don't even have to argue it well. I just have to put up a half-assed defense I came up with while drinking MD.

Quote:Further, you forget how much word of mouth marketing serves the industry. In what ways do consumers get compensated for their labor in that regard? I don't recall prices going down, nor do I detect any two way flow in any way shape or form. It's not a market in that sense. It's an oligarchy that supports a plutocracy.

I've never seen RIAA, or any other label for that matter, ask the consumers to promote it for them. They do this on their own free will. So, how is the label to blame?

Quote:In fact, most of the stuff I download isn't even in print anymore. Am I depriving the artist because I don't pay ten times the original price on EBay? No, I don't. They wouldn't get the money anyway. In fact, most of them would be unknown without fans like me: People who have been trading their music, turning others onto it, and so forth.

But, are the artists at a loss if you were to purchase that CD anyway? This is not to say that it is legal, or morally right, but the question still remains, is the artist actually losing money from such actions?

This is to say, is that the artist is neither making, or loosing money with this. With piracy, they are loosing sales of CDs, when it's active.

Quote:They system you describe does not serve the hardworking artists, at least the majority of them. It serves manure spewing wretches like Clay Aiken and Brittany Spears. You are left in a quandry: Who owns the pussy, the pimp or the whore? If you're not a whore, you don't need a pimp. If I'm getting the pussy for free, I don't need either a pimp or a whore.

How was this somewhat lude analogy, in any way relevant to the arguement? You're talking about whores and pimps, yet it's really in no way related.

Quote:You can't compare physical and scientific laws. We don't know what the physical laws are and if we will ever find them. It's falsification. I can know that things are false but I can never be completely sure that scientific laws are true.

Actually, uncertainity dictates you can't actually falisfy something.
Invisible Pink Unicorn, anyone?

Physical and Scientific laws are rather one in the same. One is just an explanation of what the other is.

Quote:Also as I said before, you cannot steal information.

So, the concept of Espionage comes from where?

You reiterate your arguement, I reiterate mine:
1. The artist owns the information (Add on: Or whot they dictate it to), or their creation.
2. Stealing is depriving another of something they own without their permission.
3. You are depriving another of something they own, without their permission.

09-22-2006 02:18 PM

ChaosSplintered Wrote:You can argue Satanism is purely hedonistic, do what you want.

I said egotist in the nicest way possible. I agree that self-interest and not altruism is the correct basis of ethics.

ChaosSplintered Wrote:Actually, uncertainity dictates you can't actually falisfy something.
Invisible Pink Unicorn, anyone?

Excuse me, I should have said falsifiability not falsification. But I don't understand what you're getting at, could you clarify please?

ChaosSplintered Wrote:Physical and Scientific laws are rather one in the same. One is just an explanation of what the other is.

No they are not. Perhaps I should have said physical laws and scientific theories because science is only made of theories not absolutes.

ChaosSplintered Wrote:You reiterate your arguement, I reiterate mine:
1. The artist owns the information (Add on: Or whot they dictate it to), or their creation.
2. Stealing is depriving another of something they own without their permission.
3. You are depriving another of something they own, without their permission.

2) Ideas and information are copyed without depriving others or the creator of it.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

R00t · 09-22-2006 03:23 PM

Quote:Excuse me, I should have said falsifiability not falsification. But I don't understand what you're getting at, could you clarify please?

Due to uncertainity, it is impossibly to scientificially prove something doesn't exist.
Therefore, nothing actually has fasifiability, just the illusion of it.

Quote:No they are not. Perhaps I should have said physical laws and scientific theories because science is only made of theories not absolutes.

Of course, this is also victim to uncertainity.
With that said, with certainity, one explains what the other is, or atleast what the most data has to support the position.

Quote:2) Ideas and information are copyed without depriving others or the creator of it.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

No. If you read a page out of my diary (And no, you can't have it. It's all mine.), and then copy it, you are depriving my of not only my privacy, but the content within, and what I have written. The same could be argued to apply to the artist/label.

09-22-2006 03:46 PM

ChaosSplintered Wrote:With that said, with certainity, one explains what the other is, or atleast what the most data has to support the position.

That's what I was trying to say. Our theories are not the absolute truth of the universe but only what is most supported.

ChaosSplintered Wrote:No. If you read a page out of my diary (And no, you can't have it. It's all mine.), and then copy it, you are depriving my of not only my privacy, but the content within, and what I have written.

I agree with the depriving of privacy but I don't understand how I would deprive you of the content. I am thinking of deprive as 'to take away' so I don't see how I could take away something non-physical.

Right now I'm just making sure we're speaking the same language.

Demonic Pyro · 09-22-2006 09:27 PM

WOW
Chaos and Kirby, you guys are really argueing....
Why don't you just agree to disagree?.....

09-23-2006 01:48 AM

Demonic Pyro Wrote:WOW
Chaos and Kirby, you guys are really argueing....
Why don't you just agree to disagree?.....

Because that's not how things work. He also said he was playing devil's advocate.

Demonic Pyro · 09-23-2006 01:49 AM

oh ok w/e

Abandoning Ship · 09-23-2006 05:06 AM

Before he Was Chaos splintered, Chaos was called Human v 2.0, and was a whiney troll with no dick.

09-23-2006 06:08 AM

The problem with your argument is you keep insisting that it's possible to steal information. It is not. When I copy music I am breaching copyright not stealing. They are completely different things. Copyright is based on the idea that we should have control over what we make with our minds. Similar to theft but different.

R00t · 09-23-2006 11:28 AM

Quote:I agree with the depriving of privacy but I don't understand how I would deprive you of the content. I am thinking of deprive as 'to take away' so I don't see how I could take away something non-physical.

This comes straight back to Espionage, and Privacy.

You're not "Taking Away", anything. This is correct. What I am eluding at is a completely different mode.

Say I have a picture. For this example, we'll say that this is a picture of my girlfriend.

Now, say I take this picture, and show it to Friend A. I show it to friend A, under the terms that she not copy it. Friend A, knowing that it is against my wishes for her to copy it, copies it regardless. She then distrobutes this between all of her friends, and leaves it open for anyone else who she wishes, to take. Should Friend A, having clearly defined terms for which she can use the picture, and knowing that she has broken such rules, not recieve retribution for her actions?

Now, let us supplement this same scenario, with music piracy.

Say Massive Attack (Random Band) takes their album, and puts out on the market. Fan A, buys the album, and opens it, by breaking the seal, that says he or she agrees to the terms of service. The listen to the album, under the terms that they not copy it. Fan A, knowing that it is against the label/band's wishes for him or her to copy it, copies it regardless. They then distrobute it between all of their friends, and leaves it open for anyone else who they wish, to take. Should Fan A, having clearly defined terms for which they can use the music, and knowing that they have broken such rules, not recieve retribution for their actions?

Another avenue of stealing is this:

Someone goes out, and buys CD X. They then copy 20 CDs, and go near a CD store, and set up shop. They charge $5 for their pirated CD, which originally cost them $15. The CD store, still charges $15, but most of that goes to the label/artist. The copier of CD X, having the lower price, would logically make more money from the CD, then would the music store, even though they not only violated the terms of service, but are not paying the label/artist?

Now, with such, say they place it on the internet, for no profit. (Any method will do, from Gnutella clients like Limewire, to BitTorrent Trackers like ISOHunt, etc.) They are still violating the music store, and what the artist should recieve for the CD. Regardless of whether they are making a profit or not, the artist is still getting the raw end of the deal.

As for "Stealing."

Say I give something out on a limited license. Something that clearly defines who can use it, and for what. This has been ruled legal by the courts, and the contract is legally binding. The person who purchases, has the rights that he or she may wish with the music, so long as it pertains to the agreement of the license CD. When they open the CD, and break the label that clearly states what the terms are, or that you are agreeing to the terms, they are legally bound to such a contract. They do not have the rights to modify or alter the content, because they agreed to the contract. By pirating the music, you violate the contract, and therefore, it is stolen.

You are also violating the terms of service, and are therefore, stealing it.

09-23-2006 11:46 AM

Quote:You are also violating the terms of service, and are therefore, stealing it.

I would be if I agreed to anything. I have never agreed not to copy a CD when I buy one. Never has the cashier made me sign a document or made me promise I wouldn't copy it.

R00t · 09-23-2006 12:09 PM

Ever see those little seals on the CD cases, the ones that say "Caution: By breaking this, you agree to the terms of service"?

09-23-2006 12:14 PM

No, never.

R00t · 09-23-2006 12:15 PM

You're kidding me, right?
I've always seen them shrinkwrapped in this little packages that say, "By breaking this, you agree to the terms of service".

Doc Johnson · 09-23-2006 12:18 PM

I like pirates. One day, when I grow up, I want to be a pirate and get a galleon of my own. A galleon is bigger than a half-galleon. Lots bigger. It will be filled with seamen. A pirate without seamen cannot sail his galleon. And maybe a parrot. Yeah, a pretty green parrot w/ an orange beak. Polly's a pretty common name for a parrot, but what else do you call one? Oh! And I need a really cool hat, w/ a skull and crossbones, and a sword. A big sword. And a plank for the bad seamen. Yes, really naughty seamen should walk the plank, and they will fall off the end. Sure, they will swim for a while, but pretty soon, they'll get tired. Then it's down, down, down to Davy Jones' locker. I always wanted to know why that guy from The Monkees got his own locker at the bottom of the sea... Maybe one day I'll get one too. When I'm a pirate.

[Image: pirate.jpg]

R00t · 09-23-2006 12:19 PM

Weren't you in the Marines?

Doc Johnson · 09-23-2006 12:22 PM

It's good to have Marines on your galleon when pirates are around. You never know when they'll come in handy. Pirates can be quite nasti!

R00t · 09-23-2006 12:25 PM

...

...

Kay then.... You go do that...

09-23-2006 12:57 PM

ChaosSplintered Wrote:You're kidding me, right?
I've always seen them shrinkwrapped in this little packages that say, "By breaking this, you agree to the terms of service".

I'm serious. I have never seen that. I live in Canada so that might be it.

But this has got me thinking. What if I digitize a record and put it on the internet? Back in the day they wouldn't have warnings on them.

R00t · 09-23-2006 01:14 PM

Well Piracy is also legal in Canada.

But yeah, every CD I have purchased, has always had some shrinkwrap on it.

WildFire · 09-23-2006 01:33 PM

..................

What is going on here?

Shall leave now..... Wtf

by the way, since i live in the us, piracy is obviusly not legal, and i would not support because i am god damn patriotic.

09-23-2006 01:52 PM

Pirates are cool especially the ones like George Fox who aren't fnord actually pirates but communist revolutionaries masquerading as godless Christians so they can help the Elders of Zion create a secular Judiac utopia like the one described in the book "Pirates Are Cool: Being a God for Dummies" written by Archimedes who also invented the plasma rifle to kill those goddamned giants who kept on stealing his ideas and eating his genetically engineering cucumbers that won the Biggest Carrot contest because he used his psychic powers to make the judges as stupid as Lazarus who accidently shot himself in the scrotum and then bled to death only to be raised from the dead by Jesus who incidentally was travelling through the town of London, England where he went to college when he was a boy who loved to play with fire and kill small furry animals that kept trying to eat his face and steal his english homework so they could sell it on eBay and get as rich as Megaman and be able to see their past lives those horses in that movie 28 Days Later which was an awesome movie and has a sequel coming out in 2007 which is also the year pyro_rebel is supposed to turn into the Anti-Christ and destroy the world with the powers of patriotism for a country that obviously needs the crap kicked out of it to show that they ain't as tough as Chuck Norris who could roundhouse kick god if he wanted to even though god doesn't exist which doesn't make sense but Chuck Norris is beyond both space and time and Aristotolean logic and even fuzzy logic which isn't as fuzzy as the inside of a walrus because of all the teddy bears in the diet of a walrus which also contains moon-cheese and Martians which is why you never see walruses anymore and anyone who tries to save them is a crack addict like Shakespeare who said that Oscar Wilde is the shit and should be canonized as a saint of ass kickering and flamboyance.

**SoulRiser** · 09-24-2006 01:09 AM

we don't have those seals on CD's here in south africa either.

one amusing thing though: a friend of mine read some south african law book, and she says that piracy is perfectly legal here. you can make as many copies of something as you want to, as long as you don't SELL it. ie - you can give it away, but may not sell it. i haven't doublechecked that though, but it sounds cool Biggrin