A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
torrent and download it.
   D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity 
(Chris Cornell with Timbaland)
   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.

There are some who believe we MUST put every portion of a cent someone 
might be owed into his pocket no matter how many hoops we must go 
through to get it there. That is a supportable argument, but there is 
another side to it.

Where would the world be if we all individuals demanded everything WE 
are owed?

I got rear-ended by a wealthy man just yesterday. He was very apologetic 
and offered me not only his insurance and business information (senior 
VP at a financial firm most would have heard of), but his personal cell 
number as well. However, there is no apparent damage to my $8k car. 
Nevertheless, I feel I have a moral and legal right to be a pest about 
it: to force him or his insurance company to paint the tiny scratches on 
my bumper and send me to the hospital for x-rays.

But I won't be a pest about it. In turn, I'll do what I can to prevent 
others from pestering me about dumb shit. Life's too short, and there 
has to be SOME limit to what others "owe" me and I "owe" them for every 
TINY liberty we take with one another.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

My guesses:
On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
I think that used to be legal at least for books. Nowadays it is 
probably illegal. Morally it is no problem. Even cleaner: try to contact 
the artist (not the IP holder if that is a different one) and ask him 
how to pay him directly.
>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
> torrent and download it.
Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the other 
guys POV.
>   D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity 
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)
I'd say both morally and legally not OK
>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.
illegal, but that might change. The rules as they are now are 
increasingly illogical. It may also depend on whether the party is 
inside your house for friends only or accessible to anybody.


> There are some who believe we MUST put every portion of a cent someone 
> might be owed into his pocket no matter how many hoops we must go 
> through to get it there. That is a supportable argument, but there is 
> another side to it.
> 
> Where would the world be if we all individuals demanded everything WE 
> are owed?
> 
> I got rear-ended by a wealthy man just yesterday. He was very apologetic 
> and offered me not only his insurance and business information (senior 
> VP at a financial firm most would have heard of), but his personal cell 
> number as well. However, there is no apparent damage to my $8k car. 
> Nevertheless, I feel I have a moral and legal right to be a pest about 
> it: to force him or his insurance company to paint the tiny scratches on 
> my bumper and send me to the hospital for x-rays.

I think I object to that 'moral right' here, but I am not an US-citizen. 
  Perhaps you should not tell anybody in case they want to force you to 
pester him anyway.

> 
> But I won't be a pest about it. In turn, I'll do what I can to prevent 
> others from pestering me about dumb shit. Life's too short, and there 
> has to be SOME limit to what others "owe" me and I "owe" them for every 
> TINY liberty we take with one another.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>    B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.

  Is that piracy? At least Finnish copyright law (which is one of the
strictest in the world, thanks to music companies) explicitly allows
recording TV programs. There's no requirement about commercials.

  Of course the irony is: If you record a TV program and lend the recording
to a friend, that's legal. If you send it through the internet to your
friend, you are breaking the law, because now you are publicly distributing
it. The end effect is exactly the same, but in one case it's ok while in
the other you are a criminal.

  It has been said that Finnish copyright law is so complicated that nobody
understands it fully, not even the people who made it.

>    D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity 
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)

  How about: Click on a link, which links to a youtube video containing
copyrighted music. You have no idea if the music is copyrighted or not.
Are you a criminal?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:33:15 +0200, andrel wrote:

> My guesses:
> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
> I think that used to be legal at least for books. Nowadays it is
> probably illegal. Morally it is no problem. Even cleaner: try to contact
> the artist (not the IP holder if that is a different one) and ask him
> how to pay him directly.

Depends on whether the book is legally out of copyright or not.  There is 
a very large collection of free books at the Gutenberg project, and all 
of them are legally available to be distributed for free.

>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for
> yourself, don't give or sell to others.

Yep, agreed.

>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
>> torrent and download it.
> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the other
> guys POV.

I think this is quite a bit muddier.  If I paid for a license to view the 
content and I could legally record it (say with my DVR), if the DVR 
screws up, I see very little difference between recording it on my DVR 
and having someone else provide me with a clean copy recorded from their 
DVR.

That said, if it's a program I haven't paid for a license to view (for 
example, something off HBO, since I don't subscribe to HBO), then it's 
much more clear cut.

>>   D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity
>> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)
> I'd say both morally and legally not OK

Curiosity is what in-store previews are for (for example, B&N allows you 
to listen to snips of tracks from music CDs in the store), or asking a 
friend who owns the album to let you have a listen.

>>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.
> illegal, but that might change. The rules as they are now are
> increasingly illogical. It may also depend on whether the party is
> inside your house for friends only or accessible to anybody.

No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also 
legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you legally 
own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.

If it's a shoutcast server run out of Eastern Europe and they're not 
licensed to broadcast the songs, then they're in the wrong legally and 
you're enabling them, so in the wrong morally.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   How about: Click on a link, which links to a youtube video containing
> copyrighted music. You have no idea if the music is copyrighted or not.
> Are you a criminal?

You also have no idea if the music is creative-commons-licensed and the
youtube video is thus completely legal. Or if it was uploaded by the band
itself.

Or if it's a rickroll and not what the link label made you think it was :)

Post a reply to this message

On 9-6-2009 23:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:33:15 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> My guesses:
>> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>>>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
>> I think that used to be legal at least for books. Nowadays it is
>> probably illegal. Morally it is no problem. Even cleaner: try to contact
>> the artist (not the IP holder if that is a different one) and ask him
>> how to pay him directly.
> 
> Depends on whether the book is legally out of copyright or not.  There is 
> a very large collection of free books at the Gutenberg project, and all 
> of them are legally available to be distributed for free.

I think that here it use to be that case that if a book was definitely 
out of print you could copy it copyright or not. IANAL
>>>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.
>> illegal, but that might change. The rules as they are now are
>> increasingly illogical. It may also depend on whether the party is
>> inside your house for friends only or accessible to anybody.
> 
> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also 
> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you legally 
> own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.

I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is 
broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to 
pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would 
distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of 
having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the 
apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay 
copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st century)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
> yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
>> torrent and download it.
> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the other 
> guys POV.

This is why C probably best illustrates my point: there may very well be 
a legal, moral remedy to my having missed the program. The program may 
*eventually* be released on DVD, but waiting for it is, in most people's 
minds, too much to ask to satisfy my moral obligations. If someone set 
up a pay download service for television programs, then most would 
believe me immoral for downloading the program for free. The only 
distinction between that possibility and now is that the download 
service would make NOT stealing more convenient.


My only point is that there IS a line at which stealing becomes 
acceptable. Does it extend to brick and mortar retail? Sure does. Just 
today, I picked up a "for sale" pen to write down an item number of some 
washers I was purchasing. I didn't purchase the pen and now the guy who 
does will have 6 fewer numbers worth of ink to worth with. Wrong? 
Whatever you think, I can guarantee that quite a few people will feel 
the other way.

Why does any of this matter? Because the tax-funded government shouldn't 
go any farther to protect a giant company's property than mine. 
Logistics demand reasonableness.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:20 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also
>> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you
>> legally own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.
> 
> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is
> broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to
> pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would
> distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of
> having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the
> apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay
> copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st
> century)

I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement, though 
- the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in a local 
radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer to listen 
to during the party.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2009 0:21, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
>> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
>> yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
>>> torrent and download it.
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the 
>> other guys POV.
> 
> This is why C probably best illustrates my point: there may very well be 
> a legal, moral remedy to my having missed the program. The program may 
> *eventually* be released on DVD, but waiting for it is, in most people's 
> minds, too much to ask to satisfy my moral obligations. If someone set 
> up a pay download service for television programs, then most would 
> believe me immoral for downloading the program for free. The only 
> distinction between that possibility and now is that the download 
> service would make NOT stealing more convenient.

And there is the point that you did pay to see the program. The reasons 
this becomes muddy is that law has not yet adopted to current 
technology. (Or alternatively that people have been paid to write laws 
in such a way that it became muddy)

> My only point is that there IS a line at which stealing becomes 
> acceptable. Does it extend to brick and mortar retail? Sure does. Just 
> today, I picked up a "for sale" pen to write down an item number of some 
> washers I was purchasing. I didn't purchase the pen and now the guy who 
> does will have 6 fewer numbers worth of ink to worth with. Wrong? 
> Whatever you think, I can guarantee that quite a few people will feel 
> the other way.
> 
> Why does any of this matter? Because the tax-funded government shouldn't 
> go any farther to protect a giant company's property than mine. 

Yes, but you are an anonymous tax-payer and that big firm comes knocking 
on the door with a lot of 'additional' cash. And their own lawyers to 
explain to you why their point of view is better than that of those 
anonymous tax-payers.

> Logistics demand reasonableness.

Who will define reasonable?

Post a reply to this message

On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
> torrent and download it.
>   D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity 
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)
>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.

Forgot to add my pet IP dilemma

G. Download an album that I already own in another format.

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2009 0:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also
>>> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you
>>> legally own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.
>> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is
>> broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to
>> pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would
>> distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of
>> having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the
>> apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay
>> copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st
>> century)
> 
> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement, though 
> - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in a local 
> radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer to listen 
> to during the party.

If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not 
close the doors.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group.

In the USA, it's a public performance, but only if you're playing it for the 
public. If each person needs a personal invitation, then it's not "the 
public" and hence not a public performance. FWIW.  I don't know where 
tennants in an apartment fall.

You can, for example, play the radio in a restaurant as long as you have six 
or fewer speakers.  All kinds of weird laws.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:37:09 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement,
>> though - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in
>> a local radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer
>> to listen to during the party.
> 
> If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not
> close the doors.

"Party" to me implies at home as that's my most common experience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:35:15 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Forgot to add my pet IP dilemma
> 
> G. Download an album that I already own in another format.

You and I both see that one the same way, I think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> 
>> Logistics demand reasonableness.
> 
> Who will define reasonable?

As always, the person who has the power to do so. For the moment at 
least, *I* am that person.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/09 15:49, Shay wrote:
>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.

	Morally, I'd say it's "mostly" OK. I've known of cases where someone 
creates a work of art (e.g. book), and years later feels he was "wrong" 
to do so (e.g. the book espouses a POV that is no longer shared by the 
author, and he'd rather not be the reason it spreads around).

	In such cases, I can see a case for respecting the creator's wishes.

> B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials

	Really don't see a problem with this one. I don't recall signing a 
contract stating that I must watch the commercials, and it's not my 
fault if someone has a business model based on this not happening.

> C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a torrent
> and download it.

	If you mean "go download it", I'd probably be OK with it. Torrents and 
p2p in general are tricky - it may be OK for _me_ to get it, but the 
fact that I'm also sharing it with others makes it likely "wrong".

> D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)

	Nope.

	I can understand downloading it just for a sample (which you can often 
do in other ways anyway). But never cared for the argument where someone 
consistently uses a product (book, software, whatever), but says it's OK 
because he wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

> F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.

	Whether it's OK or not does not depend on whether it's a party or 
you're alone. Unless it's a huge party and/or is being broadcasted.


-- 
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/09 16:38, Warp wrote:
>    Of course the irony is: If you record a TV program and lend the recording
> to a friend, that's legal. If you send it through the internet to your
> friend, you are breaking the law, because now you are publicly distributing
> it. The end effect is exactly the same, but in one case it's ok while in
> the other you are a criminal.

	Nope - not the same.

	In one case, while you've lent it, you don't have access. At any time, 
only one person will have access to the material. In the other case, 
more than one person will.

	(Not sure if that's what you meant, though).


-- 
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

My flippant response: "When you're in a boat."  ;-)

But having spent a lot of time thinking about this over the past few years 
(no, I really did), I feel it is wrong ("wrong" being subjective) only if it 
was available for a reasonable fee through legal distribution outlets.

Back in the Napster days, my colleagues and I downloaded over a thousand 
songs.  That was wrong, in most cases, because we would download entire 
albums.  However, there was no Internet alternative, so in the cases where 
we just wanted one song, we had to pay $15+ for the entire CD, assuming we 
could even find it.  In those cases, I really did not feel guilty.  Instead, 
I felt like we were forcing the music industry to step up to the plate, and 
in that regard, I actually felt somewhat justified in my actions.  There was 
no true legal Internet alternative, so Napster was similar to civil 
disobedience.  Naively, I actually felt that music would become "Free" (as 
in speech and beer).  Then the Metallica lawsuit came (I actually got a 
letter!), and the next thing we knew, Napster was actually getting shut 
down.  In a way, it reminded me of the Chinese demonstrations in Tiananmen 
Square.  How could this possibly end badly?  Communism was failing around 
the world.  But then the tanks rolled in, and the party was over.  Heck, 
they even started making CD's that wouldn't play on a computer.

Of course, later on we got iTunes, which I don't hate, but with which I'm 
certainly frustrated (see last week's post).  At that point, the music 
industry felt they had to do everything in their power to make sure you 
didn't copy and/or distribute your songs, so it's filled with nonsensical 
DRM restrictions (some of which are gone now, I believe).  Then, Amazon 
started allowing people to purchase and download actual MP3's.  All this, 
only 7 or 8 years after Napster, and about 10 years after we, the people, 
starting creating MP3's.  What took them so long to do it right?

The music industry's loss in revenue probably is somewhat related to the 
illegal distribution of MP3's, but by and large, it's probably because the 
avoided the issue for so long.  I remember downloading MP3's in 1997, and 
reading a PC Magazine (John Dvorak) article saying how he was certain the 
music industry would miss the boat on this one.  They not only missed the 
boat, they tried to blow it to pieces and then sue anyone that was on it!

So, I have no love of the recording industry, but I certainly have some 
artists that I enjoy.  Most people will do what's right, if given an 
alternative, but the music industry's own greed forced piracy to make even 
greater gains in the last decade.  They seem to have a complete distrust of 
human nature.  It's hard to support someone who calls you names 
(theif/pirate/etc.) that, historically, have never been assigned to 
copyright infringment.  Their main argument, "Sharing is wrong."  Yeah, 
that's something to teach kids.

At this point, I would do everything possible to avoid directly supporting 
the RIAA, and in fact, I would pay to see their demise.  But I still believe 
in doing the right thing for the sake of the musicians and song-writers 
themselves.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:

> >   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
> > torrent and download it.

> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view.

I'm not sure. Maybe if you believe in cosmic justice or somesort. Why does a
failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?

What about:

C2. Power company f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
torrent and download it.

or

C3. Some punks make the building's fire alarm go off during a favorite
television program - go find a torrent and download it.

or

C4. A spill on the freeway blocks traffic for hours, making you miss your
favorite television program - go find a torrent and download it.

or

C5. Recession causes you to be laid off and you cannot afford cable
anymore - go find a torrent and download it.

... etc.

The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Why does a
> failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?

The failure doesn't.  The fact that you have paid for the license to view 
the program does.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/09 15:16, somebody wrote:
> The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
> something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.

	With little relevance to the point at hand.

-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a3015ee$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Why does a
> > failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?

> The failure doesn't.  The fact that you have paid for the license to view
> the program does.

You'd have a point if you ask for a discount on the cable bill for a mess up
caused by them. Otherwise, it feels to me like expectation of a case of two
wrongs to make a right.

Another example: You rent out a movie but never get the time to watch it
(maybe through external circumstances). Is it OK, since you paid for the
license to view it but did not, to download from torrent later?

More generally, it it morally acceptable to download *any and all* movies or
programs that have at one time or another been broadcast on a cable package
while you were subscribed to it? You have certainly paid for the license to
view all those programs, after all.

Or take music... Since we pay (in one form or another) to listen to any
music that is broadcast over the radio, are we then entitled to download any
mp3 that has ever been broadcast in our lifetimes?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:27:50 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a3015ee$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Why does a
>> > failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?
> 
>> The failure doesn't.  The fact that you have paid for the license to
>> view the program does.
> 
> You'd have a point if you ask for a discount on the cable bill for a
> mess up caused by them. Otherwise, it feels to me like expectation of a
> case of two wrongs to make a right.

Well, I don't expect you to change your opinion, I'm just expressing 
mine.  You've already made it quite clear that you won't change your 
opinion on this, no matter what counters are presented.

When face with an absolutist point of view, it's pointless to continue 
the discussion.  So I've expressed my opinion and respect your right to 
disagree without further comment.

Unless you are willing to be convinced...then I'm willing to do more than 
just express my opinion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a3029d8$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:27:50 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a3015ee$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> > Why does a
> >> > failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?
> >
> >> The failure doesn't.  The fact that you have paid for the license to
> >> view the program does.
> >
> > You'd have a point if you ask for a discount on the cable bill for a
> > mess up caused by them. Otherwise, it feels to me like expectation of a
> > case of two wrongs to make a right.

> Well, I don't expect you to change your opinion, I'm just expressing
> mine.  You've already made it quite clear that you won't change your
> opinion on this, no matter what counters are presented.
>
> When face with an absolutist point of view, it's pointless to continue
> the discussion.  So I've expressed my opinion and respect your right to
> disagree without further comment.
>
> Unless you are willing to be convinced...then I'm willing to do more than
> just express my opinion.

Why is convincing me so critical for you?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:14:53 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> Unless you are willing to be convinced...then I'm willing to do more
>> than just express my opinion.
> 
> Why is convincing me so critical for you?

It isn't, but it's a basis for a conversation on the topic.  Justifying a 
certain point of view becomes tiresome if there's a 0 probability of 
someone who holds an alternate point of view saying "you know, I hadn't 
thought of that" but instead just continually attacking that point of 
view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a3059d3$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:14:53 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> Unless you are willing to be convinced...then I'm willing to do more
> >> than just express my opinion.

> > Why is convincing me so critical for you?

> It isn't, but it's a basis for a conversation on the topic.  Justifying a
> certain point of view becomes tiresome if there's a 0 probability of
> someone who holds an alternate point of view saying "you know, I hadn't
> thought of that" but instead just continually attacking that point of
> view.

What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that" should
it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

Besides, debates are almost never about convincing the other side.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that" should
> it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an 
internet discussion, yes?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:50:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
> should it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

What Darren said....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a306637$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
should
> > it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

> Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an
> internet discussion, yes?

Not quite the same thing (new angles or data on a problem don't necessarily
imply different resolutions). In any case, does my claim that I will never
change my mind proof that I will never change my mind? Would it have been
more likely that my mind could be changed, should I have not made that
claim?

I wish I had that kind of perfect mental control...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:

> In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof that I
> will never change my mind?

No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold a 
discussion with, so I choose not to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
> 
>>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
>>> torrent and download it.
> 
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view.
> 
> I'm not sure. Maybe if you believe in cosmic justice or somesort. Why does a
> failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?
> 
> What about:
> 
> C2. Power company f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
> torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C3. Some punks make the building's fire alarm go off during a favorite
> television program - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C4. A spill on the freeway blocks traffic for hours, making you miss your
> favorite television program - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C5. Recession causes you to be laid off and you cannot afford cable
> anymore - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> ... etc.

C6. I just plain forgot to record it - go find a torrent and download it.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned. And even though I have paid for 
cable, the recording I download from the net will be without 
advertisements. So, I'm "screwing" the advertisers and "screwing" the 
guy who MAY SOMEDAY put the recording on DVD.

So, this act is "wrong" in the sense that it is amoral in the 
black-and-white religious sense of morality -- someone, somewhere was 
hurt by the act. However, if one looks at morality as a set of 
guidelines which have emerged as the best way for people to have a 
trusting, pleasant society, then the act is perfectly acceptable. Better 
than just acceptable even -- positive. My downloading the missed episode 
leaves me more inclined to watch future episodes, to continue to pay for 
cable, to continue to watch the network's advertisements.

The world is a better place when a person can pick a loquat from a tree 
in someone's front yard, listen to a an obscure "album" released on 
cassette only in 1980, occasionally shout loud enough for a neighbor to 
hear, drink from a hose-bib in an alleyway, or get a second chance to 
correct a tiny mistake. These things aren't wrong.

> The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
> something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.

Another bottom line: one can for the majority of time find somebody or 
something who was victimized by any act, if so inclined.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a306637$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
> should
>>> it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?
> 
>> Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an
>> internet discussion, yes?
> 
> Not quite the same thing (new angles or data on a problem don't necessarily
> imply different resolutions).

True. And that's why Jim offered his.

> In any case, does my claim that I will never
> change my mind proof that I will never change my mind? 

It's definitely evidence. It's even *greater* evidence that even were you to 
change your mind you wouldn't admit it.

> Would it have been
> more likely that my mind could be changed, should I have not made that
> claim?

Yes.

> I wish I had that kind of perfect mental control...

Again, there's "you can't disprove it" and "we proved it". It's a question 
of how much work goes into doing something for what expected reward. Is 
there any proof there's no giant chest of gold under my back yard? No. Is it 
worth me getting out the shovel to look for it?  No.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof that I
> > will never change my mind?

> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold a
> discussion with, so I choose not to.

Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present evidence
of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further discussion, I
propose that we do not place too much stock in stated inflexibilities. Then
again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original discussion....

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof
>> > that I will never change my mind?
> 
>> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold
>> a discussion with, so I choose not to.
> 
> Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> inflexibilities.

So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is 
a flaw in your reasoning?

> Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> original discussion....

My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly 
clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so 
further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty 
pointless.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message

> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> > discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> > inflexibilities.

> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is
> a flaw in your reasoning?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is of
perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> > original discussion....

> My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly
> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
> pointless.

Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
of any arguments I make.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> 
>> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
>> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
>> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
>> > stated inflexibilities.
> 
>> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
>> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing 
your mind if proven wrong.  That's what's called (in my book) a waste of 
my time.

I don't tend to spend my time trying to change people's minds when 
they're not open to having their opinions changed.  That tends to be a 
futile exercise, and not worth me wasting my time on.

Unless I'm bored, that is.  I've got too much to do now to engage in such 
a discussion.

>> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original
>> > discussion....
> 
>> My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly
>> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
>> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
>> pointless.
> 
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> validity of any arguments I make.

Of course it doesn't.  But it does play into whether or not I want to 
spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.  It's my time 
I'm concerned about, not yours. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
> of any arguments I make.

	Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for 
him or anyone else here to counter your points.

	If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy,  then it 
would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your 
conversion likelihood.

	As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in discussion 
with you on this topic.

	(And before you say it: The suggestion that you're giving counterpoints 
and that he may benefit by practicing in counter them is, in most cases, 
an invalid suggestion).

-- 
All work and no pay makes a housewife.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:02 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth 
it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.
> 
> 	If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy,  
then it
> would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your
> conversion likelihood.
> 
> 	As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in 
discussion
> with you on this topic.

Precisely, thank you for that summary, that's exactly what I've been 
trying to get across. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a32b7be$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:

> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
validity
> > of any arguments I make.

> Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.

I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As
it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
discussion with demagoguery.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a32a605@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> >> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
> >> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
> >> > stated inflexibilities.
> >
> >> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
> >> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> > of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> your mind if proven wrong.

I said no such thing.

> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of  my time.

See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.

> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> > validity of any arguments I make.

> Of course it doesn't.  But it does play into whether or not I want to
> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.

Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
argument? Is it the validation you seek?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:15:18 -0600, somebody wrote:

> As
> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.

I told you what my point was.  It's not my problem that you don't accept 
it.  But let's do without the personal slurs, OK?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
>> your mind if proven wrong.
> 
> I said no such thing.

You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online 
discussion and that you don't see that happening.  You state your view as 
an absolutist view.  What exactly am I meant to think?

>> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of  my time.
> 
> See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.

I did, and I saw no need for you to decide what my intention was.  I 
stated what my intention was, and as I wrote to you up there, it's not my 
problem that you refuse to accept my explanation.

>> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
>> > validity of any arguments I make.
> 
>> Of course it doesn't.  But it does play into whether or not I want to
>> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.
> 
> Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
> argument? Is it the validation you seek?

I don't really care what you think any more.  I certainly don't need your 
validation for my reasons for not continuing to debate a moral/legal 
position that is different from your stated position.

Since you are determined to continue painting me as intentionally 
derailing "your" thread, you can have "your" thread back.

Enjoy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:
> I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
> to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
> trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As

	What gave you the idea he is "wasting time"? Are you suggesting you 
know in depth what he takes interest in and what he doesn't? And 
somehow, you know this better than, say, I?

	In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to 
argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something 
in it for you, presumably.

> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.

Translation: "The people in this newsgroup are too stupid at reading 
comprehension, so I must deign to inform them on what is going on 
regarding Jim Henderson".

	This isn't exactly the best forum to win points by playing the victim.

-- 
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ 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:4a332193@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:

> In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to
> argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something
> in it for you, presumably.

I never said my time is too valuable to waste.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a33214f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> >> your mind if proven wrong.

> > I said no such thing.

> You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online
> discussion and that you don't see that happening.

Do you not see any difference between that and "not changing one's mind if
proven wrong"? Anyway, I won't press the matter any more. Even to me it's
starting to now look like waste of both our times.

Post a reply to this message