Off Topic Poker Forums

FYP

haha I pirated my cassette tapes

I think there are a lot of things that people do may be equally wrong and require no justification for.

Is piracy worse for society than those things?

Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but are you saying that because piracy is less bad than other things, that it's relatively irrelevant?

Sneakers, Techno, and I have agreed on something. Continuing this thread is only pushing us closer to the apocalypse IMO.

http://youtu.be/MVFj-_SDIHE?t=26s

What I meant was that "pay" in your example would be pretty much comparable to "not pay enough for" in mine. In other words, the pay should measure up to what the 'owner' feels its worth is, not some outside entity's sense of it.

I agree with this, but I may be interpreting it incorrectly. The owner (Improva) should be able to charge whatever he feels his product is worth. The consumer does not get to decide the price (unless the owner chooses that route obv).

Stealing is a legal term, which is decided upon by the government, right? If the case goes against me, I am wrong, if it does not, by definition, I am not 'legally' wrong. For you to use the term so loosely and judgmentally really defeats the purpose of the discussion.

IF, and I agree, there are many that disagree with any of my thoughts, you think stealing is an 'end result' label of my actions AFTER being judged by legal means, then sure, 'stealing' is bad. But until we as a society agree as to what 'taking' digital substance is, stealing is a harsh word to use for those who disagree with your particular sentiment.

I use it out of convenience instead of saying "taking something that doesn't belong to you without providing the necessary compensation." See how long that was?

We as a society need only to ask, "does the creator of product A deserve anything for his efforts?" To me, the answer is yes.

kudos to you for getting involved in this. Shows more principal IMHO

I have the kudos now. This means I win.

Well, want to really learn an issue? Try defending the side you disagree with.... I have played devil's advocate so often it is second nature (y'all could probably tell this already ) Instead of attacking something/someone , trying to examine the various sides of an issue might actually promote getting to the point you want to end up at.

I agree with this. I just can't get past the notion that someone who creates something shouldn't be compensated for it. That just seems like such a simple fact that I can't get my head around the fact that, instead of paying for it, we should all just take it. I don't even know how to argue the other side. I've seen the arguments ITT and many don't make any sense.

And yet your 'go ahead and sacrifice your integrity...' remark seems justified to you? I mean, all those guys who disagree are that lacking in integrity in your opinion? If so, you have a very broad brush sir.

Indeed. If you [insert synonym for steal that doesn't have legal connotations] something, then I most certainly think it decreases your integrity and questions your character that you would value product X over doing the right thing. This isn't to say that you won't grow and mature as I did, but if you view the internet as simply a medium for taking things you don't deserve, then you are swept up in my brush strokes.

So when you visit places do you research the area first? My point about eminent domain was made in part because there is a shopping center here in DFW that took/stole/paid less than what the owners felt was fair just to have a parking lot extended for a Nordstroms to be built. Until a recent Supreme Court decision, it was wrong/illegal to take something for private use, rather than public 'good'. In our twisted world, this no longer seems true (in the US). So, when a park is built on land that is 'taken' do you still visit? You shopping anywhere this is true?

I apologize, but I don't understand the relevancy of this paragraph. I shop on Amazon if that helps lol.

So does your "I" in the above refer to you as part of a society? Or just you as a person, who might be blindly traveling around preferring to NOT know all the things that were NOT paid for?

Again, I'm struggling a bit at staying on track with this, but I don't expect people to have perfect knowledge. Getting back to the point at hand, most people know that when they download something that they are taking something that doesn't belong to them.

TSB, my point is that we are all part of a system that we at times disagree with. It is a price of belonging to a society. And 'society' decides what is right and wrong.

Nawhead seemed to be saying that the digital world is creating change. Business , economic, and legal systems will need to adjust.

I agree that we need to adjust. I still have yet to see an argument for why someone shouldn't be compensated for their work though. I even read the Radiohead article (and the comments!). That's great that they did that. That doesn't change the fact that Improva and others like him deserve to be compensated. Please, I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

Please, I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

you won't because there isn't one... This is why

Indeed. If you [insert synonym for steal that doesn't have legal connotations] something, then I most certainly think it decreases your integrity and questions your character that you would value product X over doing the right thing. This isn't to say that you won't grow and mature as I did,.

my general points about eminent domain and its abuse is that there are instances where we, as society, enjoy the fruits of 'taking' someone else's property without adequate compensation. I am sure you actively try and avoid these public (and now sometimes private) spaces.

After all you would not want to be painted into the same corner you are putting "us" in, right? I mean, who would be left to hold that brush?

And now, having been alerted about eminent domain abuse, your growth and maturity would not allow you to take advantage by saying you were ignorant? You will start researching your travels? And in return, I promise not to download any of Improva's books (without paying for them)

which

PS "using" is the term I might choose instead of stealing above.

I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

Well, TSB, I am not sure that naw or I or anyone else in this thread is actually advocating the "taking something for free".

I thought naw's point was more along the lines of "Hey, the technology available today allows this to occur, and society needs to embrace new paradigms" - pardon to naw if I am misrepresenting this.

The paying for something I can get for free argument? Well, the thought I come up with would be sports or music venue related. Am I an immoral person if I build a 12 story condo that overlooks Texas Motor Speedway and its occupants can see the race without paying for tickets? Does Fenway Park have the ability to charge everyone on the balconies of the homes that have a view and are out on their porch? If I can hear a band play, but did not purchase a ticket, do I need to move out of earshot?

And if you think these have little in common with other creative pursuits, could you explain how?

which

Well, TSB, I am not sure that naw or I or anyone else in this thread is actually advocating the "taking something for free".

I'm not going to go through the entire thread looking for others, but EUSSI and nawhead both said or implied that it would be irrational to not take what's available online for free. This is exactly the point I have been arguing against.

As for your other examples, if you build the condo for the strict purpose of watching free races, first lol, and second, that's probably something the the speedway just has to accept. Improva has to accept that there will be people out there who will "use" his book for free. This acceptance != permission and does not justify the action.

Ok, I'm actually done now. I'm going to go watch a poker movie that I just purchased (even though someone put it on YouTube).

you won't because there isn't one... This is why

i'm pretty sure you just stole that picture. and made us complicit in stealing it too. please apologize to Tecmo. now.

sure, "irrational" sounds correct. But reason and morality do not always coexist peacefully....

Remember when Clinton lied about "having sex with that woman" ? Many at work told me, "I would have lied too, what was he supposed to say?"

They felt the rational thing to do was to lie when caught.

which

I edited my response above to add some things. See above.

PS "using" is the term I might choose instead of stealing above.

+1

but labeling an action as something bad to prove that it's bad when the controversy is whether that action is actually something bad is so much easier.

I thought naw's point was more along the lines of "Hey, the technology available today allows this to occur, and society needs to embrace new paradigms" - pardon to naw if I am misrepresenting this.

that was just a call to get real. my basic stance is that sharing/copying/consuming an intellectual product (e.g., reading a book in the library [we're not even checking it out, yeah, we're stealing on the premises now, the audacity of some people!] or watching a sport from outside the park, nice example btw) is not even remotely the same thing as stealing physical property.

No one here has addressed naw's question about second hand bookstores AFAIK.

I have been thinking....... (always a bad idea)

I want to buy a book, Actually might be Improva's, since I did not know he even had one before this thread. No joke, not inserted for effect

If I buy a hardcover, am I allowed to give it to a friend when I am done? How about a relative? If I buy a digital copy, I cannot give it physically. But I am allowed to lend a hardcopy right? Would I be allowed to share a digital copy with a friend? Would we have to use Teamviewer, or could I just send him the file? If I buy a book, I can drop it off at Half Price Books and they will pay me 5-10% of cover price usually. AFAIK this is not illegal. They then sell that book for 50% of cover price (author gets nothing ) The new owner gets to give it to friends, relatives, share, lend etc. Then he can take it to Half Price Books, and a new buyer gets it. AKAIK none of the purchasers are criminals. Or immoral. Can I sell my ebook for 5-10% of purchase price? Is it wrong if I do?

I have a photographic memory. Anything someone tells me, I retain. Anything I see, I retain. I go into Barnes and Noble, where they allow browsing. I am interested in Poker, and wind up reading every single book they have. I tell my friend how to play poker perfectly. He remembers. He is crushing the games. He writes a book. It seems a lot like Harringtons book. Strange coincidence. His book turns into a best seller.

I know this is a stretch, but to make it simple I will lay out my understanding of the literary world.

Its a Race !! Pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.

If you can freely sell second hand books, it would be possible for the entire world to read a single book. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what actually happened when printing was first invented.

When an author writes a book he is hoping the public's desire for this book, and willingness to address various hurdles associated with different distribution channels exceeds the supply.

So the 'want' for the book has to exceed the supply, or there will be no sale. Can't wait for second hand books? Buy it new? Can't wait for library waiting list? Buy it new or used. Can't wait for business hours? Buy it for your own library. Cant wait for your friend to finish reading it? Buy one for yourself.

If every city had a library with every single book in such quantity that no one would ever have to wait, would bookstores exist? Maybe. But there would be fewer sales.

myself? I totally agree with Naw. The key to the new world we live in is to add value. Give the customer something to go along with the 1s and 0s that can not be copied easily. Improva seems to have figured that out already.

which

which

Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but are you saying that because piracy is less bad than other things, that it's relatively irrelevant?

If you're asking if I'm saying that "piracy less bad than bad things like murder so it's irrelevant" then no, I'm definitely not saying that.

I'm saying it's possibly less bad or equal to a lot of things that are wrong, but are deemed as generally acceptable and commonplace, and will continue to be done just because of the nature of the system in place.

Arguments can be made that people who play poker are doing wrong, and it's even a moral, social and legal grey area in a lot of places. However, the monetary incentives are in place. There are a lot of justifications that you can throw at it, but they don't really cover up the reality that it is probably overall 'wrong' and for the benefit of self.

The nature of society, though, is as competitive as it is cooperative. Some 'wrong things' end up being acceptable under that regard, as long as there are not enough monetary/social/legal disincentives in place, e.g. slightly bullshitting your way through a job interview at the expense of another candidate. This idea will often extend to exploiting a crack in the system, or someone else within that system, and being able to 'get away with it' so to speak.

Whether society should work like that, that's a deep and complicated subject that's hard to cover. But it does, and piracy is just one example.

Ty Schweig. I understand what you meant now