how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
988 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Only ONE needs to WIN... Because we live in a capitalistic society where free market plays frst and foremost. Sounds like you want to live in a socialistic or communist society where you are given what you need and told what you get and what job you will perform and for how much too right?
Funny ... because file-sharing via P2P is a LOGICAL OUTGROWTH of INNOVATION, the MOST DESIRED biproduct of CAPITALISM and FREE MARKETS.
Meanwhile, YOU are arguing for LABOR TIME THEORY in this particular instance, which is a RICARDIAN, and also MARXIAN notion.
What do you know, Fiberguy, you're wearing pink by accident! | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Wow! So, in your theory, which is wrong too, is that people can make money based solely on innovation? That may sound good to you and others on the surface, you are still wrong.
In this country, you can NOT profit off of the back's of others just because you were "innovative." Hey - I don't like that fact that car dealers close at 6pm on Friday & Saturday, and also they close on Sunday in my state. I think there is room to grow on evening sales on the weekend as well as Sunday sales. I am going to be innovative and start late night car sales in my area/state. Should I go plant myself on these car lots during the later hours and Sundays and sell the dealer's cars becuase I am being innovative by doing evening and late night sales? Is this innovation? or is it free market? Please tell me. I want to be right here.
Analgy - I came up with a new idea, and sold/did something with a product that wasn't mine to sell in the first place. Music sharing? The idea of distributing intellectual property that wasn't mind to do so in the first place.
In the world of music and movies? Want to know how to make it legal? You transfer the file to someone else, and destroy any copy that you have based on the purchased original. If you GAVE the song to other person and you no longer retain the original, then you can get away with music sharing, or music swapping. This is no different that if you actually sold your used CD or DVD movie.
Just because someone made a bi-product, ie: file sharing, on the internet to transfer or "share" songs doesn't make it right. Just because Napster found a cool use of technology doesn't make it free market. The owner of the product didn't give anyone the right to distribute the intellectual property in the first place.
Also, *I* didn't argue your so-called "labor time theory", actually I responded to some one else's argument that only so much time was put into the product that it's not worth what the artist makes on the product. The fact remains there is that it's not up to me or you or anyone else to decide what we will pay for a product directly, BUT, we can make the decision to buy or not. If enough people decided not to buy a product, THEN then the market place will dictate the price or value - but it's not the individule.
Wearing pink by accident? Nope.. not me. Sorry, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking, and yours is not the popular voice of this country. I hate to tell you this, but your way of thinking MAY be the popular voice here, but in the real world, it's not. | |
1 edit | Should I go plant myself on these car lots during the later hours and Sundays and sell the dealer's cars becuase I am being innovative by doing evening and late night sales? Is this innovation? or is it free market? Please tell me. I want to be right here.
MEH! Wrong. You're not selling cars when you share music. No profit is lost directly. The person still has their original tapes that they paid for when they recorded. If they don't, they got duped.
These are profits yet-to-be-made which may or may not have been made if file-sharing did not exist. Your analogy is incorrect and wrong. The nature of art invalidates your very argument as I have proved in each of my posts here.
Want to know how to make it legal?
Are you arguing law or ethics? I mean, you're wrong on both counts, but which is it?
If its law ... well ... copyright was originally intended to make sure no one PROFITED off of a particular person's particular idea for a particular period of time. No one is profiting off of file-sharing. And thus, copyrights' intent is not being violated. Rather ... CORRUPT record labels are violating the spirit by purchasing those ideas through contracts that defy the intent of copyright and price gouging.
If its ethics, see all of my other posts. File-sharing is not morally wrong and may even be morally right. At worst, it is lying, but I am still thinking about that one.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking, and yours is not the popular voice of this country. I hate to tell you this, but your way of thinking MAY be the popular voice here, but in the real world, it's not.
Consensus, thank God, is not fact. Otherwise, the world would've been flat when the majority thought it was.
You did argue for LTV, which is not MY so-called theory, its Ricardo's so-called theory.
The fact remains there is that it's not up to me or you or anyone else to decide what we will pay for a product directly, BUT, we can make the decision to buy or not.
We're making the decision not to buy it. We're downloading something included within it that happens to not cost anything to make (music). If an artist was dumb enough to pay someone to record it, that's their own fault. Thusly, innovation has made the CD market moot. It hasn't made the music market moot. People can still sell their artwork. People can still sell tickets to their live show. Just like it worked for thousands of years.
When I support an artist, I am doing just that, supporting the artist. The artist is selling something essentially valueless in a capital system (see my other posts, I have proved this with logic). I say "hey my friend, I support what you are doing and here is some money even though you are giving me nothing of capital value and this is a wasted investment from the economic perspective."
sold/did
These two things are hardly extensionally equivalent.
The difference between you and I is a truly support artists. And that is a big part of why I support file-sharing. Apparently, you support corrupt people selling an outdated, worthless product. Which is why you don't support it.
Please read my posts before replying ... you will learn that is labels who allow the initial digitalization of artwork anyway by sending it to radio and via people who work for the label who "leak" the albums.
the labels wanted a cheaper cost-of-production then analog everything, so they made CDs. Well, they got a cheaper cost-of-production, all right. But instead of the profit gouging they were hoping for ... it did the opposite. Fixed things to the true cost-of-production. Sucks to be bloated. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You aren't worth my time. I gave up when I even gave you the example how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost.
Live in your dream world. Go ahead and justify your desire to be a thief. You have proven NOTHING that is valid except in your world.
Don't worry, I won't respond to your posts any more. Have a good day. | |
| how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative.
You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. | |
 ChrisDATGoogle Keyword Compsysnyc
join:2002-02-26
Hollis, NY | reply to ChrisDAT
I'm kind of wondering if the "cons" on this subject who "feel" that file sharing is immoral, stealing, and just plain wrong, would still feel the same if/when the court decides that the RIAA tactics are in fact illegal, and that the sharing of music is in fact protected as fair use?
I'll put it another way, file sharing is not illegal now, but sharing music can land you in court. What if that "risk" were gone?
If your belief and your behavior would change in any way, you have let "the man" win, as many have, and I'll submit that your convictions are not as strong as they should be.
Actually, I would opine that the "pros" have more conviction and concern for the promotion of the art, than the cons, who are just afraid -- so I'll leave you be -- I don't want you on my side.
The truth is, no matter what happens, the cat is already out of the bag, and it's never going back in -- like it or not, when this plays out, the diehards who care about the music more than the money and music "establishment" will still do, and the others ... they'll probably find some other soapbox to stand on.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about the art. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to broadbander
said by broadbander:how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative. You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. No, I am not going to let you get away with that one and again try to put words in my mouth. I won't reply to you any more because you MAKE NO SENSE! I have read your other posts on this site and there you make no sense either. You are ALL OVER THE BOARD and can't stick to the point. Have fun! | | |
|
| said by fiberguy:said by broadbander:how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative. You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. No, I am not going to let you get away with that one and again try to put words in my mouth. I won't reply to you any more because you MAKE NO SENSE! I have read your other posts on this site and there you make no sense either. You are ALL OVER THE BOARD and can't stick to the point. Have fun! Interesting. A sumbitted arguments in this specific instance that follow traditional ways of writing logic that have existed for at least one thousand and eight hundred years, and yet, they make no sense?
My reducto de absurdity, which is probably the hinge of my argument here, is hardly a new form of logic. I'm making sense in a way that people have made sense for 18-plus centuries. Don't like it? Study logic and come back with your own forms to prove my notions absurd.
___________
I think
That which thinks, by its very nature exists
___________
If A and B then ...
C ... I exist
Pretty simple stuff, my friend. | |
|
