Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | being hypersensitive and claiming an ad-hom is foolish... however, the ethics of stealing tangible goods vs. tangible goods are quite equivalent... but since you've made the claim that the ethics aren't equivalent, i'd like to see an argument from you that defends this thesis... then for you to say that no amount of arguing is going to prove anything, only proves that you are setting yourself up for not being able to take criticism on a premise that you've just tried to define as being not true...
i have no problem justifying, defending, and giving proper argumentation to counter your claim that the ethics of stealing non-tangible goods cannot be argued according to you... i'll give you a perfect example... we all know that an apple is a tangible good... if you take it without paying for it, you are a thief... i think we can all agree on that...
now, let's say that an advertising agency creates an ad campaign for a particular product... the copy, the print, the graphics, the style, the shape, even the colors are all made using digital processes... in essence they are intangible... now, you take that digital intangible property and use it for your own gain, you have not paid for it, but yet you use it... it's intangible because it's simply a collection of electrical bits arranged in such a way that can be decoded for end use, but you didn't pay for and use it anyway... what does that make you...?
this isn't a difficult thing to argue and i think i've proven my point on the matter... the problem with people like you, is that you want to be contrarian(s) in nature... if someone says left, you want to say right... up becomes down... you want things your way because you have, through the use of technology the ability to manipulate data, an intangible product, with or without permission... the distinct difference is, is that it isn't yours to begin with now is it... you didn't invent it... you didn't create it... you didn't design it or engineer it, but yet you are willing to claim that an intangible assett has a completely different ethical basis that allows you the right use it without paying for the privilege of using it, to distribute it without said payment or permission to other who would do the same...
your idea of ethics is flawed... |
| So, my ethics are 'flawed' according to you. Let's just say we agree to disagree. I most certainly won't listen to a right-wing christian trying to PREACH to me what is right and what is WRONG. I make my own moral decisions in life, and where in the world do YOU get off telling me I am wrong? It's people like you and your religious beliefs that have killed FAR MORE PEOPLE in history than any nation or tribe has. Religion isn't the solution to the problem, religion IS the problem.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
 Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
1 edit | reply to Asmodeus
Your advertising campaign example just kind of confuses me. Trademarks and copyright are fairly distinct and only somewhat similar.
When you abuse a trademark, you are decrementing the name of the company that stands behind it..
Branding encapsulated baking powder as Viagra is an example of your claim. I'm sure Pfizer would have a hard time maintaining the integrity of their advertisement established brand name if junk looked legit.
The form of infringement that I am referring to happens when individuals use information for greater benefit or enjoyment than the creator might like. Honestly now. When I picasa an entire book instead of buying the new edition, the book sits, unsold, on the shelf. Maybe the publisher is "deprived" of the sale, but they haven't lost their book either. Information wants to be free and technology is the key to opening up other channels of accessing knowledge.
one last bit..
quote:
didn't your parents or whatever you can call parents that would claim you as their child, ever tell you that theft is wrong...?
Sounds like a personal attack to me.. We are debating whether what is happening is objectively wrong because it genuinely deprives artists. AND, the answer is both yes and no, not that Karl was poorly raised because he doesn't believe one or the other side to be precisely right. |
