holy **** this thread is exhausting.
SOON, WE WILL ALL HAS A FLAVR!!1!
The music industry in particular has to answer the question why they first sold you a license to listen to a recording on vinyl, saying that much of the money is for the artist, and why you have to pay a license fee from scratch as if you never had one for the same recording when buying a CD. They now answered the question by removing the artists from the money flow, kinda.
If the intellectual property companies had it their way VCRs would always have been illegal to have. You wouldn't be able to sample your CDs to listen to them on a music player or your PCs, they would have you buy a band new license on each device. Running bittorrent would be impossible or illegal even for legal uses (yes there are those). Lucky for us they went so greedy that the law makers and law interpreters couldn't side with them anymore.
In the end, I was, more or less, speaking to the ridiculous analogies everyone are using. We just really love our philosophical fallacies.
Last edited by exnihilo; 04-15-2012 at 10:26 AM.
Or are you saying that they are wrong? Because if you say they are wrong that means you are wrong (since your stance is that others beliefs are as valid as yours)
You see the issue? either way you are wrong.
Regardless of your views of whether buying pirated excel in Indonesia is right or wrong, the question posted was about people in a first world country stealing products used for recording.
Still with me? Now let's take it a step further. How many people in this forum have built guitars based on Leo Fender's design from scratch? Why is it that nobody is going into their threads and saying "You son of a *****! Infringing on Leo Fender's intellectual property!" Let's take it a step further. Seymour Duncan creates pickups to replicate the sounds of humbuckers from the 1950s. How come we're not saying "You utter company of *******s! Why are you stealing Seth Lover's intellectual property? Anyone who needs a '60's style humbucking pickup should just pay for a vintage Les Paul."
Just because it's easier to create an exact copy of something digitally doesn't mean it's any different than making an exact copy of something with common materials.
You might get into a trademark discussion if you copy stylistic elements of the chair too closely (or if the chair is made by DiMarzio and you paint it all beige, you bloody product pirate you).
A piece of software is covered by a currently valid copyright claim. That's the difference.
A small software company writing a game or an audio plugin has had one-time investments in making this product and will die if the money doesn't come back. Competing with them has to be done by doing your own one-time R&D investment.
The point I'm trying to make is in response to Aceman's comment that it's somehow wrong to produce a copy of something you own. Nobody sees the carpentry example as being immoral, but many in this thread have indicated that the same thing related to software is.
Software guy does. From a copyright perspective you are allowed to make an identically behaving software, but you aren't allowed to actually copy his source code or binaries.
Well, Aceman is incorrect so there
if absolutism is correct, then by definition relativism cannot be, as absolutism says that relitivism is incorrect.
If absolutism is incorrect, then by your beliefs you are also incorrect (as your beliefs are no more valid then absolutism)
the only way relativism works is if you ignore this.
furthermore you stated that you judge and respond to incidents without undermining the premise that the moral stance of the people pissing you off is no less valid than your own. Yet your statements and actions in this thread do just that, as you imply that those claiming moral absolutism are incorrect.