 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:13:00 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> loss of death
I think you meant "loss of life", but it reads funnier this way. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:07:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
> making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
I don't know that this is even analogous. ISP filtering is more like
keeping you from entering (or leaving) your home because you might do
something illegal in your home.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:26:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> If you can't catch the actual
> law-breaker, it's probably a bad law to punish the otherwise-legal
> precursors.
Well stated.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:4a07ad62$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:07:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> > ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
> > making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
> I don't know that this is even analogous. ISP filtering is more like
> keeping you from entering (or leaving) your home because you might do
> something illegal in your home.
Can I play too? OK, ISP filtering is more like killing puppies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a07aa08$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/10/2009 12:55 AM, somebody wrote:
> > Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
> > society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
> business model that allows them to continue making money.
So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
model instead of seeking protection?
It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
to succumb to theieves. Is your judgement being clouded by the underdog
mentality? Some of the businesses may be big (many are not), but they are
providing livelihood to many individuals, down to the janitor who cleans the
studios.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
>> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
>> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
>> business model that allows them to continue making money.
>
> So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
> model instead of seeking protection?
Completely different. A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
has a limited number.
It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
then it's gone.
> It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
> to succumb to theieves.
You know what's absurd? Hiding your head in the sand.
Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
piracy. From a pragmatist's standpoint, it makes sense that businesses
find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
customers.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a082f86$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> >> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
> >> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
> >> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a
new
> >> business model that allows them to continue making money.
> >
> > So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new
business
> > model instead of seeking protection?
>
> Completely different. A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
> has a limited number.
Typical fallacy.
> It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
> then it's gone.
Same difference. A tomato does not represent value to a farmer as a fruit
that he can eat. It's value is as a commodity that he can sell to make
income. Steal a tomato, a farmer has one less to sell. Steal a song, Apple
has one (OK, maybe 0.125 for you who say not all those would buy it anyway)
to sell. It's about stealing away legitimate business by illegal means.
> > It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding
businesses
> > to succumb to theieves.
> You know what's absurd? Hiding your head in the sand.
>
> Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
> Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
> piracy.
Just as car thieves are here to stay. All protection schemes can be broken.
But both technologically and legally, there's much to be done to minimize
the damage.
> From a pragmatist's standpoint,
Switching gears now I see.
> it makes sense that businesses
> find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
> customers.
By definition, one who steals is not a customer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
> model instead of seeking protection?
If a person selling groceries leaves his wares out at night and doesn't
secure them, then yes - he needs to change his business model.
> It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
> to succumb to theieves. Is your judgement being clouded by the underdog
And the solution is to decriminalize much of it. They're thieves
because of overreaching laws, not because it is somehow morally or
ethically wrong.
> mentality? Some of the businesses may be big (many are not), but they are
> providing livelihood to many individuals, down to the janitor who cleans the
> studios.
And yet, I don't believe they receive any of the payments from the
fines that people pay. Besides, I fail to see the point in invoking
them. A poor business model is at least as responsible for these
people's livelihoods as is piracy.
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a06e618@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >>> Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market
works
> > on
> >> Never said nor implied that it was.
> >> Companies try to market the result of artwork. They're free to change
> >> their business model to survive.
> > Something like: If I steal your car, you are free to ride a bike to
work.
> Something like: If my car gets stolen, I get to take your money to
> make up for it.
That's called mandatory auto insurance. And you and I both pay upfront.
Funny how you think you are bringing up absurd analogies to detract, but
they end up supporting my case. You *do* pay a premium for financial damages
caused by thieves, be it autos or songs. So stop supporting them if you know
what's in your best interest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 May 2009 00:16:59 -0600, somebody wrote:
> Can I play too?
No. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
