Bitcoin Forum
January 28, 2022, 05:39:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 06:33:26 AM
Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

An "ad hominem" implies that I am trying to prove your claim is false by attacking your person, but all you're doing is putting your fingers in your ears while singing "Lalalala, the rules don't apply to me."  There's nothing to claim is false. Wink

And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws.  The fact that you can't see that makes you either young and sheltered, a malignant narcissist or a sociopath.  I still think you're just young.
2  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 06:05:00 AM
Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."
I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body.

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  

Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  
It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant.

Haha!  Fourteen!  My guess is you're fourteen, Alpha!  It could go a few years either way, you could be an old-twelve year old or a young eighteen year old, but I hold to fourteen.  ^_^
3  Economy / Economics / Re: Are Currency and Money the Same thing on: November 09, 2011, 05:50:00 AM

So having a patch of land you don't have money ?


Correct. You have wealth, not money.

I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time.

Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time.

All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter.
Money = wealth in exchange.
Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged.

Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors.

This is my view on things.

What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right.

 

In this case, land is a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc.  As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits.

In the barter system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources.  You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week.

But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat.  You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel.  But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with.

But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange).  In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread.  Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon.  You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge.

After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them.  So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). 

And that's the story of how a resource became a currency.  Wink

You are absolutely right . The only difference that i could spot , and you can call me whatever you like , I don't really care , is : I consider that when they exchanged that set of knifes for 20 loaves they used those resources as money , because they EXCHANGED resources. The notes are money for as long as the baker has bread. If he doesn't you and all the others can take the notes and shove them up your ass/ down your mouth but you won't get much out of them. Therefore the notes are currency.

It's just a matter of perspective after all.

from thefreedictionary.com :

monˇey  (mn)
n. pl. monˇeys or monˇies
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.



You're right.  Technically it would be considered as a Commodity Money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money), where the value of exchange is intrinsic to the item itself.  Where commodity money fails is that the value is very subjective dependent upon my immediate needs:  if I don't need any more bread, and don't know anyone else who I can trade it with, it carries a low value for me, but to my neighbor, who's starving, it can carry a much higher value.
4  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 05:42:12 AM
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.
Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife.  Wink
5  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

It just hit me. Why would pro-copyright people claim that pirates want to take ownership of other peoples' IP (you're not the first) if pirates don't believe in the concept of intellectual property in the first place?

Because that's what you're effectively doing from an outsider perspective.  By disregarding copyright law, you are behaving in a way that, legally, only the original copyright holder can behave in. 
6  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 05:34:52 AM
Summarized:


What's a right:

Quote from: Wikipedia
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles ...  the fundamental normative rules ... according to some..."

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

Quote from: wikipedia
"Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something."
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. ... such as [walking on] other people's private property"

Where rights come from:

Quote from: wikipedia
"Politics ... discussion about ... "rights" is ongoing...."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

Quote from: wikipedia
"Copyright law ... part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Congress shall have Power ... by securing for limited Times ... Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."


Or "it's this or that, maybe having to do with politics, and discussion is ongoing, but we think it comes from law or Constitution."

As I said, no understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Or rather, believe rights are things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture, and which we commit to paper.

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.  

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.
7  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 05:09:24 AM
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.
8  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 09, 2011, 04:00:55 AM
People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,
i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

Where do you think rights come from?

That's a stupid question to ask those people. Only because after 100+ pages on another thread it's been pretty thoroughly established that they don't understand what rights are, let alone where they come from.

What's a right:

Quote from: Wikipedia
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. "

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

Quote from: wikipedia
"A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting.
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right."

Where rights come from:

Quote from: wikipedia
"Politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

Quote from: wikipedia
"Copyright law in the United States is part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The power to enact copyright law is granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Copyright Clause, which states:

    The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
9  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 08, 2011, 10:43:40 PM
my personal opinion is... our actual system is purposely flawed to hinder creativity.
The OP commented some pages back on some 10.000 dollars in fees that must be payed by the artists before producing a disc. Where are those money going ? Why they impose them on the artists ? Why the real artists only get a small percentage on the sales ? Lots more unanswered questions...

The thing is in this times will be very difficult to monetize on the distribution channel, so the real artists would have to find some ways to do it by cutting the "middle man" in the process and let people see in advance what are they paying for if they want to make a living on their creations too.

Those recording fees are a hold over from the days when recording music wasn't so ridiculously cheap and easy.  Now anyone can record an album in their bedroom with a laptop with Garage Band and release it via iTunes. 

Even fifteen years ago, in order to record music of any quality at all, you needed a recording studio with expensive equipment, people trained in using that equipment, ties with manufacturers who could produce records/CDs, marketers and advertisers, distribution networks, shipping costs, etc, all of which don't exist anymore, no matter what the RIAA wants you to believe. 

This is why the last decade has been the rise of the indie musician: they don't need to sell their copyrights to the record companies anymore, because they can do the job of the record companies themselves for a lot cheaper, and arguably better.
10  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 08, 2011, 10:38:23 PM
People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,
i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.
11  Economy / Economics / Re: Are Currency and Money the Same thing on: November 08, 2011, 10:06:32 PM

So having a patch of land you don't have money ?


Correct. You have wealth, not money.

I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time.

Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time.

All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter.
Money = wealth in exchange.
Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged.

Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors.

This is my view on things.

What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right.

 

In this case, land is a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc.  As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits.

In the barter system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources.  You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week.

But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat.  You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel.  But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with.

But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange).  In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread.  Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon.  You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge.

After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them.  So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). 

And that's the story of how a resource became a currency.  Wink
12  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 08, 2011, 03:55:23 AM
I try to make games.

I agree with copyright laws... To some extent.



Someone asked here: Why musicians are "entitled" to be musicians and not have a crap job?

Well, copyright was invented, to solve this, in fact, the first copyright law was a text that stated on it that it was a contract:

Artist and scientist would work full time as artist and scientist, thus making more work for society.

Society would pay that people back.



So, I want to make games... but right now, noone want to pay me for that, so I have another job, and it is so time consuming that I stopped making games. Who loses? Well, everyone. Me, that make no games, and players, that have none of my games to play.

Copyright was SUPPOSED to be a win-win thing, unfortunately, corporations (always them...) screwed things up, specially by making the copyright be author life + lots of time.

Tell me, will Disney (the guy, not the company) create more stuff with the current copyright law? Well... NO, HE IS DEAD.

Or, will Tolkien write more? NO, HE IS FUCKING DEAD.


DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT CREATE.

So, WHY THE HELL COPYRIGHT LASTS WELL AFTER THEY DIE?



That is to start.



So, I think copyright has a good essence, but a really evil implementation. (also the same goes for other IP laws, like patents... software patenting, seriously? Or trademark... with trademark trolls that trademark a common word and whatnot... Although the trademark law is the less broken of those laws, and work fairly well).

I agree all the way.  The issue is that estates of dead creators have kept pushing for longer and longer copyright periods so they can keep profiting off of the deceased creator's work, but all that is is a form of leeching.
13  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 08, 2011, 03:53:00 AM
I know a lot of artists who draw really well, and put their stuff up online for free. They then take comision requests that they charge money for which they use to live off of. The free art is an advertisement; a demonstration of their skill. The custom job is what they get paid for.  Musicians can, and often do, get paid the same way. They give their music out for free to advertise their skill, a radio station can "hire" their skill if it's good enough, then the radio station pays them to keep producing music while advertising supports them playing it to everyone else for free. Likewise, I keep hearing that big name musicians make mst of their money from actually doing work at concerts as opposed to CD sales.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.
14  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 07, 2011, 05:29:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat.  Roll Eyes


tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

this times a million.

Okay, I get your argument now:  because you haven't found a way to get compensation for doing the things you love, you've gained the right to take from those who have.  Roll Eyes
15  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 06, 2011, 09:18:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat.  Roll Eyes
16  Economy / Economics / Re: Are Currency and Money the Same thing on: November 06, 2011, 05:06:56 PM
So from this I'd gather that currency is the actual thing used for exchange, whereas money is the abstract. I could give you 1 BTC for a stick of gum, and that'd be a use of it as a currency.  However if I just give you a wallet.dat that contained 1 BTC, that would be using the wallet.dat as money.  I think.

Maybe not.  You can use a non-currency money to pay for something, see my example above about paying a tailor with a check.

Most likely, Bitcoins are forms of money transfer, not a currency, though the process is easy and anonymous enough to treat them as such.
17  Economy / Economics / Re: Are Currency and Money the Same thing on: November 06, 2011, 04:57:30 PM
Where it gets weird, is whether Bitcoin is a currency or just money.  It has certain characteristics of currency, but it may just be a (mostly) anonymous form of money, though users think of it as a currency.
18  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 06, 2011, 04:09:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.
19  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 06, 2011, 06:03:03 AM
Quote from: Serge
Let me ask you this is it ok to go to restaurant or store and taking something with having no intention of ever paying for it?

Piracy = Copy
Your hypothetical situation is invalid.

Here's one for you, suppose there's a medication patented by a large Pharma corp that's too expensive for countries to afford? Suppose China, India and Cuba 'pirate' the formula and make inexpensive clone generics saving millions of people's lives. Would you still be against piracy?

This is what 'Intellectual Copyright' has given humanity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit

A confusing web of endless lawsuits as corporations fight for control of everything

There's two things at work here, and they're not necessarily the same thing:  what's legal and what's ethical.  In your drug example, China, India or Cuba mass producing a drug that's too expensive for them to buy may be the ethical thing to do, but it's still breaking international patent law.

To give you a flip example from the business world, I'll give you a case study from the startup Callpod and their dealings with Target:  Callpod produces a universal charging device called Chargepod, which has become a big hit.  Attempting to increase distribution, Callpod seeks a deal with Target in order to nationally distribute the Chargepod, but the deal hits a snag, but eight months later, a clone of the product, being produced by Target themselves, appears in their stores.  Callpod, which was smart enough to file a number of patents on the Chargepod technology, sues Target, who never had any real desire to sell the original Chargepod in their stores, and wins damages.

Target behaved illegally and maybe immorally in this case, but every move they did was the right move from the business perspective.  They knew that startup companies aren't usually the best at defending cases of patent infringement.  Most of the time, they don't pursue any civil suits, and if they do, they hire inexperienced lawyer friends who get beat in court.  In this case, Target was wrong, but more often than not, they would be able be able to sell the product without having to pay any of the licensing fees or any negative repercussions.  And even in this case where there were repercussions, they weren't enough to damage, or even noticeably dent Targets earnings.

When you download files off the internet, you're behaving like Target:  you may have virtually no chance of getting caught, and are gaining access to tools you wouldn't otherwise, but it's still copyright infringement.  Spare us the rationalizations, and have the balls to admit that you're doing something illegal, even if you won't get caught.
20  Other / Off-topic / Re: Piracy on: November 05, 2011, 06:49:14 PM
I'm not Serge, but I like putting in my two cents, so here we go.  Wink

If I pirate something that I had no intention in buying in the first place, is that still theft? The copyright owner is not missing any revenue from me.

It's not theft, but it's still copyright infringement.  It's like saying stealing a Maserati isn't theft because you couldn't afford one anyway.  Not losing revenue doesn't change what it is, just arguably changes the damages. 

I'm subscribed to HBO but I don't feel like watching Boardwalk Empire on Sunday night, so instead I pirate it Monday morning and watch it on my computer. Is that theft?

The Betamax case, which states viewers are allowed to time-shift their television watching, puts you into a legal grey area, as it would the website hosting the file.  The person who uploaded it would have been breaking copyright law.   

If you owned the DVD, and were ripping it to watch on your computer/iPad, you would be breaking the law under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act due to the fact you were circumventing copyright protection, despite the fact that you were covered by Fair Use.  (I agree, this is asinine).

I buy an Xbox game and make a backup just in case. After some months the original disc is unreadable so I start playing with the backup. Is that stealing?

This is allowed under Fair Use.

I just recorded some songs that were playing in the radio and now I can listen to them unlimited times for free. Am I a dirty thief?

Believe it or not, this is one of those cases that's never been judged.  A company was sued by the entertainment industry over this, but the company's legal fees caused it to go bankrupt before a decision was made, so who knows how this could go?  Overall, it seems like the record industry really doesn't care that much.

On a side note, copyright was created originally as a legal agreement between the government and content creators, saying that if you agree to make stuff, we'll give you control over that stuff for a limited period of time.  After that period of time is up, it passes into the public domain, which means anyone can riff off of it, and create their own material based off of it.  But companies and estates have pushed copyright to become so ridiculously long, it essentially excludes anyone from ever being able to use anyone else's work without paying for it because copyright now goes on for essentially forever, here in the States.

This video is very interesting:  http://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!