ImprobableJoe
New Member
Ah, yes... you call me names while telling me I'm not nice. Sweet! :lol:COMMUNIST FLISK said:hyppocrite, your not exactly coming accross as a nice person yourself you know.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah, yes... you call me names while telling me I'm not nice. Sweet! :lol:COMMUNIST FLISK said:hyppocrite, your not exactly coming accross as a nice person yourself you know.
No, I'm not "nice" but that doesn't make me a hypocrite, which means you're just name-calling for no good reason.COMMUNIST FLISK said:well its the TRUTH, so deal with it, not only did i not call you names but i am simply pointing out a fact that anyone else (including yourself) can see if they just read the rest of the topic.
ImprobableJoe said:You are a thief, so i'm done with you.
No, I'm not "nice" but that doesn't make me a hypocrite, which means you're just name-calling for no good reason.
COMMUNIST FLISK said:besides, ending your so-called arguement with "you are a thief, so i'm done with you" is just completley and utterly rediculous. and then you complain at us for not arguing correctly? i think that makes you by definition a hyppocrite.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.COMMUNIST FLISK said:not "namecalling" in any sense. you are a hypoccrite joe plain and simple, besides, ending your so-called arguement with "you are a thief, so i'm done with you" is just completley and utterly rediculous. and then you complain at us for not arguing correctly? i think that makes you by definition a hyppocrite.
You didn't read the posts on the other side, did you. You're right in that it isn't about illegal downloading of a couple of songs: they are specifically talking about abolishing copyright entirely, so that no one has a right to own ANY creative work. Here, take a look:Otokogoroshi said:I still don't understand why people keep circling around illegal downloading. Is it wrong? Yes, that's why its called illegal. However on the spectrum of wrong its a pretty pathetic one.
Having said that the main reason I'm puzzled as to why this keeps getting hammered on is because seemingly from everything I've looked at no one is actually arguing that their primary point is even CLOSE to being about downloading music without having to pay for it.
1> We wish to REFORM copyright to limit it's effective roll and it's licensing length. (To stop this monopoly bullshit where people are paid 1p to make one CD and then the distributors sell it on for ,£25 a disk)
U;ultimately abolish it completely to insure that this monopoly does not effect main media the way it currently does
2> Abolish Patent law.
3> Insure personal privacy is respected by the large distribution companies. Currently the American government and Several others are secretly trying to put a directive together concerning IP tracking technology. Which is a serious breach of free speech directives.
2> Abolish Patent law.
You're also eliminating any and all incentive for touring... because touring costs money, and if there's no one making any money on CD sales, there's no one to fund the tours, or new albums, or anything else.Ozymandyus said:Yeah, when I read that post I was completely baffled... he seemed to me to be trying to say: you are making us sound WAY too reasonable... like we only want to pirate music and software and such... what we REALLY want is to completely abolish all laws that allow anyone to profit from their creative labor! Pirating music is just a tiny part of what we want!
Oooooh you are right! I totally misunderstood! Where do I sign up!?
All this talk about monopoly and only a handful of people making money off of this or that industry or whatever is so ludicrous. For a CD that costs 16 bucks the profits are split between HUNDREDS of people. You are not just ripping off the artist, you are ripping off the people that work in the stores or own stores, people that advertised the cds and worked on the cover art etc, people that worked their asses off promoting the cds, people that run recording studios and do sound mixing.... the list goes on and on.
Furthermore, the barriers to entry on the creative side are incredibly small - anyone can sit down and record an album and try to promote it on the internet. It's not going to have the millions of dollars and infrastructure to promote it, but that is part of why they charge as much as they do for the big name CDs. Compare that to manufacturing barriers to entry and you see that it is completely impossible to monopolize a creative industry. ESPECIALLY if you actually support small musicians outside the framework of the big recording industries, or use linux, or do anything else you can to support the little guy - which is what you SHOULD be doing instead of pirating.
I guess they should just do it out of the kindness of their hearts?Aught3 said:To take a specific example - drug companies, I was just wondering how you would expect them to be motivated to produce new drugs if they didn't have exclusive rights to manufacture it for what, seven years?
How is that even remotely useful? All the GOOD drugs are patented. All new drugs are patented. Eventually the patents run out, and there are generics... after the original creator has enough time to make a profit and recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend developing drugs.COMMUNIST FLISK said:thats a bad example
most drugs arent patented. (hence why you can get like 20 brands of the same damn thing - painkillers) yet all the companies produce them
They are patented. The patents just expire after a set number of years, like almost all patents. Even generic drugs are often patented formulas, even if the individual active ingredients are no longer patented (because they've expired.) Either way, a big part of the funding for researching new drugs (which is unbelievably expensive) is recouped by patenting. If a company could just start making that drug as soon as someone else did all the research to get it FDA approved then NO company would ever research new drugs.COMMUNIST FLISK said:thats a bad example
most drugs arent patented. (hence why you can get like 20 brands of the same damn thing - painkillers) yet all the companies produce them
I don't think they know how anything works, besides knowing that they want everything, and want to contribute nothing.Ozymandyus said:This is the thing about most people arguing for the non-copyright side I feel. They don't even know how any of the laws even work.
I'm not really talking about most drugs, I said in my post that I was specifically referring to the production of new drugs and even mentioned what I thought the time limit on a patent was (7 years, at a guess).COMMUNIST FLISK said:thats a bad example
most drugs arent patented. (hence why you can get like 20 brands of the same damn thing - painkillers) yet all the companies produce them
Otokogoroshi said:So yes it is insulting for Joe and Triumph to suggest that all these people want is their free music. Not only that it's just downright wrong.
Seemingly people are latching on to a tiny aspect and worrying at that like a pit bull ignoring the rest of their argument.