Hawker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
 |
October 20, 2011, 03:02:13 PM |
|
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam) In our case, its because our stuff has online elements that require a server. With commercial software, its because the cracker wants to appear legit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed
timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It
takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but
hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 20, 2011, 03:54:50 PM |
|
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws...
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
You really like this society concept. Could we not say that at a minimum, society is comprised of at least 2 people? It's small I know, but still true. Can we not also say that it only requires one person to create law? Now given the above, it would seem obvious that the law(s) created shouldn't favor the one person over the other, because by doing so, the one individual could gain an economic advantage over the other. This advantage could eventually lead to the other person eventually losing his property to the other individual due to his cunning manipulation of the law. This typically results in different classes of individuals. Now I ask you, should the one individual be esteemed higher than the other, under the law? No doubt the individuals are unique and have different skill sets, but should there be privileges bestowed via force of law? Is there a logical reason why there should be any inequitable application of law? Should one man's property be given any greater privilege than the other man? Remember, the property is just combinations of atoms or molecules in an infinite number of configurations. Why should any specific interpretation of that property obtain special privilege and status? Should not the division of property be one of a physical nature? To wit, shouldn't the property you have, be of any configuration you choose? Should we also not want to violate or invade any individuals physical property or person? If property can be defined beyond the physical and chemical characteristics, then by mere interpretation, one individual can obtain the property of another by description alone. If it is to be assumed that the composition of matter is what determines property, then any combination or permutation could gain favored status and confiscatory powers; and why should some compositions gain privilege and not others? Or why, if intellectual property really was just like physical property, that it should have an expiration date? That would be like the government deciding from one day to the next that your ownership of your house, isn't for life (or transferable to your heirs and assigns), but could expire next week. I mean seriously, how would you feel if your "representative" sent an agent to confiscate your property because they decided the expiration date was in a few days? What makes them so important to decide this matter? From whence comes their privilege? I surely wouldn't give it to them. Oh yeah, the majority thought it was a good idea. Why is the majority deciding what to do with my property again? Why should the majority be voting on what to do with my property in the first place? Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it? Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated? |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 20, 2011, 04:53:25 PM |
|
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam) Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 20, 2011, 05:09:07 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 20, 2011, 05:16:37 PM |
|
Or why, if intellectual property really was just like physical property, that it should have an expiration date? That would be like the government deciding from one day to the next that your ownership of your house, isn't for life (or transferable to your heirs and assigns), but could expire next week. I mean seriously, how would you feel if your "representative" sent an agent to confiscate your property because they decided the expiration date was in a few days? What makes them so important to decide this matter? From whence comes their privilege? I surely wouldn't give it to them. Oh yeah, the majority thought it was a good idea. Why is the majority deciding what to do with my property again? Why should the majority be voting on what to do with my property in the first place?
Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it?
Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated?
 |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 20, 2011, 05:41:48 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. It doesn't matter that you do it or many others. You and many others may in fact be two percent of what sales might be. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 05:57:40 PM |
|
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam) Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free. It doesn't matter why, because the motives are personal. It's provablely true that a large number of people will pay money for a game available free of charge, legally and without consequence. The Humble Bundle series are evidence enough that people will contribute millions of dollars toward quality, independent game development without even an expected minimum donation. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 20, 2011, 05:59:08 PM |
|
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws...
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
You really like this society concept. Could we not say that at a minimum, society is comprised of at least 2 people? It's small I know, but still true. Can we not also say that it only requires one person to create law? Now given the above, it would seem obvious that the law(s) created shouldn't favor the one person over the other, because by doing so, the one individual could gain an economic advantage over the other. This advantage could eventually lead to the other person eventually losing his property to the other individual due to his cunning manipulation of the law. This typically results in different classes of individuals. Now I ask you, should the one individual be esteemed higher than the other, under the law? No doubt the individuals are unique and have different skill sets, but should there be privileges bestowed via force of law? ...snip... Fred - try to stick to one point per post. I feel bad snipping stuff you spent time on. Any law favours one person over another. One guy says "All property is theft." Another says "Stop stealing my car." The law must choose between them. Now you may feel that it gets the balance wrong but a choice must be made and someone is going to end up feeling hard done by. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:01:11 PM |
|
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam) Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free. It doesn't matter why, because the motives are personal. It's provablely true that a large number of people will pay money for a game available free of charge, legally and without consequence. The Humble Bundle series are evidence enough that people will contribute millions of dollars toward quality, independent game development without even an expected minimum donation. Exactly! There is no need to change the law for people to make free games. Some of us choose to make proprietary programs. If you don't like that, stick with the freebies. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:05:31 PM |
|
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP? No. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:13:38 PM |
|
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP? Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws. The above paragraph is an obvious contradiction. The en forcement of IP laws implies the use of force. The NAP is in direct contradition of the initiation of use of force. Harm avoidance is a practical goal, it is not a principle. The use of government force to avoid harm to a subset of the population necessarily increases harm on some other subset of the population. So the question then becomes, who is initiating force in this 'harm avoidance' situation? Does the teenager who downloads a bootleg copy of a film via bittorrent threaten or attack the copyright owner in any meaningful way? Obviously not. He doesn't even prevent the copyright owner from doing with the data what he intended to in the first place, nor is he likely to spend money that he doesn't have on a copy, so he can't even be causing the copyright holder a loss of revenue. So who is initiating the use of force? ...snip...
The moral foundation is well established. We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm. If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.
The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon. The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases. I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives. What is society? Is it the entire population that resides within a particular set of imaginarly lines on a map? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:15:35 PM |
|
If you've got arguments that address the issues highlighted in this post, please use them. Otherwise, Wait, what? That was a serious post? Do you have issues with the multiple meanings of English words? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:23:26 PM |
|
All this talk about unanswered posts are BS. I've personally answered half of them, and my responses have gone ignored. I shall now ask a simple question, for at least the fourth time in this topic alone... Does Nina Paley have the right to earn a living off of her magnum opus, Sita Sings the Blues? Does she have the right to ask for any sum of money in exchange for this work? http://blog.ninapaley.com/http://sitasingstheblues.com/ |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:28:55 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:40:45 PM |
|
If you've got arguments that address the issues highlighted in this post, please use them. Otherwise, Wait, what? That was a serious post? The post to which I linked is serious. The post you quoted was in response to FirstAscent. He and Hawker constantly stick their fingers in their ears and yell "ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!" but then ignore the answers given and create some new fantasy scenario. Do you have issues with the multiple meanings of English words? To what are you referring? |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 20, 2011, 06:48:23 PM |
|
To what are you referring?
Oh, sorry. I was looking at the post above yours, which might be the post behind yours for yourself because I have the forum set to read in reverse. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 20, 2011, 07:01:53 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online And if there is no IP law, the movie maker won't see a cent of that $12. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 20, 2011, 07:03:44 PM |
|
...snip...
What is society? Is it the entire population that resides within a particular set of imaginarly lines on a map?
Wikipedia it. I already linked it once for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 20, 2011, 07:05:40 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online And if there is no IP law, the movie maker won't see a cent of that $12. Unless they own all the theaters somehow and do searches of everyone entering the theater and exert tight control over the editing team during production and the theater workers. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 20, 2011, 07:22:00 PM |
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online And if there is no IP law, the movie maker won't see a cent of that $12. Unless he releases copies of the movie ONLY to specific theaters under contract, or sells it for millions to Hulu or Netflix. You know, like how movie makers do already, and which has been mentioned many many many times. |
|
|
|
|
|
