Copyright seriously ? >_<

carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Copyright seriously ? >_<

 

Is someone taking copyright seriously ? I mean we all know its punishable and don’t take the risk however can you smell the bullshit ?

 

My question is directed at atheists because I know how the brainwashed theists simply have no thinking skills.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
I know the RIAA and the MPAA

I know the RIAA and the MPAA take copyright seriously - but who doesn't thake thier bread-n-butter seriously?

Copyright has its uses defending the little guys with new ideas against the big guys who have the resources to steal those new ideas and get them marketed before the little guy has the chance to get started.

Hey look! The US has a copyright czar! Just what we needed, another method to treat people like criminals.

Ok, sorry for that tangent, but using copyright like a bludgeon illustrates what I don't like about it.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 Actually its most often

 

Actually its most often used via the big business and if you are little you can …. (can I su someone for copyright infringement of my stuff and win ? Good look I’m more realistic about this).

 

Mostly the main problem is :

 

A)    There is no shut thing like a Intellectual Property

 

B)     It can be disqualified via a reductum ad absurdum

 

C)    Contradicts math

 

D)    Actually everyone can get in jail for this I don’t know if you realize this however under the current copyright system everyone accessing the internet is pirating that’s how the magical computer magic works.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:Actually its most

carx wrote:
Actually its most often used via the big business and if you are little you can …. (can I su someone for copyright infringement of my stuff and win ? Good look I’m more realistic about this).
Ok, to be clear: I mean the idea of copyright, not the abomination it is now, would protect the little guy.

 

carx wrote:
Mostly the main problem is :

 

A)    There is no shut thing like a Intellectual Property

Sure there is. Like many human concepts, if we invent it, it is so. The question is: Is it a useful concept? (My answer: No, it probably isn't.)

 

carx wrote:
B)     It can be disqualified via a reductum ad absurdum
Eh?

 

carx wrote:
C)    Contradicts math
In what way?

 

carx wrote:
D)    Actually everyone can get in jail for this I don’t know if you realize this however under the current copyright system everyone accessing the internet is pirating that’s how the magical computer magic works.
This was settled in "intended use" cases. If the copyright holder places the information out where it can be downloaded, it was intended to be reproduced for viewing and is thus not in violation of copyright.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 IP Contradicts math : How

 

JillSwift wrote:


Sure there is. Like many human concepts, if we invent it, it is so. The question is: Is it a useful concept? (My answer: No, it probably isn't.)

 

I conserve of god conclusion god exists ! I conserve of a square circle conclusion it exists ! I conserve of something impossible conclusion it exists !
I conserve  the earth is flat and because of this the earth is flat.
 Easy reductum ad absurdum ,  next. Laughing out loud

------

IP Contradicts math :

 

How many non repeating  arrangements in a 2 positional system can there be if you have the possibility of choosing 2 different options for one position ?

Answer 4  , 2^2=4 if 3 positions and 2 options 3^2=9 simple numbering positions a picture/music is nothing more then a arrangement of positions (pixels) and colors with means that every movie/picture/music is just a number ! How someone can own a number or state that he can create more numbers that are possible in a grid is impossible ( 2^2 =4 you need to use Orwellian math to think that 2^2 = 5 or 2+2=5 ). There is only a finite number of visible colors and a technically restricted size of a picture raster or a movie/music duration. To think that you can create intellectual property is insane like thinking that 2^2 is more then 4 or infinite.

 

-----

IP reductum ad absurdum :

 

Lets have 2 groups of people separated with no possibility of communication.(other planet/galaxy)

2 people 1 for every group “creates intellectual property” (sarcasm intended)

They both discover a engine type and patent it , they both “invent/create” identical lyrics.

Now after a long period of successful sales in both groups we have a impossibility both creators are equally pirates and robbers because they have stolen “intellectual property”

 

They have at the same time arguably ownership and no ownership of their creations it’s a reductum ad absurdum for IP.

-----

 

JillSwift wrote:


This was settled in "intended use" cases. If the copyright holder places the information out where it can be downloaded, it was intended to be reproduced for viewing and is thus not in violation of copyright.

 

 

 

 nice explanation of the close however how do you know something hase ben put via the author on the internet ?

If you always assume it’s the truth then pirated downloading is legal because every user can assume that the files have bean put there via the authors. (

Making most of the retarded RIAA raids on downloader’s insane.

)

 

Anticipating your response carx

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:IP Contradicts

carx wrote:

IP Contradicts math :

 

How many non repeating  arrangements in a 2 positional system can there be if you have the possibility of choosing 2 different options for one position ?

Answer 4  , 2^2=4 if 3 positions and 2 options 3^2=9 simple numbering positions a picture/music is nothing more then a arrangement of positions (pixels) and colors with means that every movie/picture/music is just a number ! How someone can own a number or state that he can create more numbers that are possible in a grid is impossible ( 2^2 =4 you need to use Orwellian math to think that 2^2 = 5 or 2+2=5 ). There is only a finite number of visible colors and a technically restricted size of a picture raster or a movie/music duration. To think that you can create intellectual property is insane like thinking that 2^2 is more then 4 or infinite.

Ah. True, but not practical.

Everything can be represented by math (and that's why math is so wonderful), and the human experience is limited. Alone, this isn't much of a case against copyright, because a "new" idea is the domain of perception.

 

But, staying with the practical here: What needs protecting is not the idea, but the ability of the person who had the idea to make use of it for her own profit.

 

So: Copyright as a limited and temporary protection of an idea makes sense.

But copyright as an all-encompassing moat-n-wall against ever not being able to profit from that idea is an obscenity.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:I conserve of god

carx wrote:
I conserve of god conclusion god exists ! I conserve of a square circle conclusion it exists ! I conserve of something impossible conclusion it exists !


I conserve  the earth is flat and because of this the earth is flat.
 Easy reductum ad absurdum ,  next. :D

The Reductum ad Absurdium here is yours. I'm talking about concepts as tools, and we invent all manner of concepts: Money, districts, ownership...

carx wrote:
IP reductum ad absurdum :

 

Lets have 2 groups of people separated with no possibility of communication.(other planet/galaxy)

2 people 1 for every group “creates intellectual property” (sarcasm intended)

They both discover a engine type and patent it , they both “invent/create” identical lyrics.

Now after a long period of successful sales in both groups we have a impossibility both creators are equally pirates and robbers because they have stolen “intellectual property”

 

They have at the same time arguably ownership and no ownership of their creations it’s a reductum ad absurdum for IP.

-----

Not much of an argumnet until we actually have another species to compete with. As for two people coming up with the same/similar idea at the same time: current system is whoever gets it registered first wins.

I'm not arguing that it's fair, or sensible. It's just that your argumnets against "IP" are a little flimsy.

 

carx wrote:

nice explanation of the close however how do you know something hase ben put via the author on the internet ?

If you always assume it’s the truth then pirated downloading is legal because every user can assume that the files have bean put there via the authors. (

Making most of the retarded RIAA raids on downloader’s insane.

)

Erm. I very much doubt it's practical to think everyone downloading a copy of Spore right now has the slightest illusion that the author put it out there to be downloaded gratis.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 JillSwift wrote:Erm. I

 

JillSwift wrote:

Erm. I very much doubt it's practical to think everyone downloading a copy of Spore right now has the slightest illusion that the author put it out there to be downloaded gratis.

 

 

How so ? why suppose otherwise ? What is the evidence ? How about songs ? Or GPL software ? Charity ? Or Open movies (something that actually works completely reverse to normal movies people make movies from money from charities and the movie is open to the public)? What suppose to indicate that its otherwise ?
And BTW how do you know that a “legal store “ is actually selling legal copies ? especially the inter net download type ? is there some kind of indication you are going to prove or give distinguishable signs else your scenario fails.
A important note is not to base your assumptions especially not on low it’s a concept plagued via absurdities and self-contradiction.

The abundance of open and free download nullifies your appeal to extrasensory perception of IP.


JillSwift wrote:

Not much of an argumnet until we actually have another species to compete with. As for two people coming up with the same/similar idea at the same time: current system is whoever gets it registered first wins.

I'm not arguing that it's fair, or sensible. It's just that your argumnets against "IP" are a little flimsy.

 

 


The practicality of this scenario is irrelevant think 300 yarest from now maybe in a distant star system a separate colony of humans. It’s a scenario showing how the concept can be self-contradictory and therefore more of a imagination. How can you own a number is beyond help or sanity especially that it can be repeated.  And one question will a artist that doesn’t have the archive of all copyrighted works get arrested because  he/she didn’t know that a other person haze IP over a 20 word lyric to a song ? How many lyrics can you com up with ? You are limited via math and language (it needs to rime) .

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:How so ? why

carx wrote:
How so ? why suppose otherwise ? What is the evidence ? How about songs ? Or GPL software ? Charity ? Or Open movies (something that actually works completely reverse to normal movies people make movies from money from charities and the movie is open to the public)? What suppose to indicate that its otherwise ?
The evidence is on the various forums attached to torrent sites and other P2P. They know they're doing something illegal.


carx wrote:
And BTW how do you know that a “legal store “ is actually selling legal copies ? especially the inter net download type ? is there some kind of indication you are going to prove or give distinguishable signs else your scenario fails.
I'm not claiming there's anything clear-cut about it.


carx wrote:
A important note is not to base your assumptions especially not on low it’s a concept plagued via absurdities and self-contradiction.

The abundance of open and free download nullifies your appeal to extrasensory perception of IP.

You sure did beat up that straw man.


carx wrote:
The practicality of this scenario is irrelevant think 300 yarest from now maybe in a distant star system a separate colony of humans. It’s a scenario showing how the concept can be self-contradictory and therefore more of a imagination. How can you own a number is beyond help or sanity especially that it can be repeated.  And one question will a artist that doesn’t have the archive of all copyrighted works get arrested because  he/she didn’t know that a other person haze IP over a 20 word lyric to a song ? How many lyrics can you com up with ? You are limited via math and language (it needs to rime) .
You're again guilty of reductio ad absurdum.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 JillSwift wrote:The

 

JillSwift wrote:

The evidence is on the various forums attached to torrent sites and other P2P. They know they're doing something illegal.

 

 

Sorry that’s not a argument Laughing out loud you are assuming something you need to have actual prove or a test. Besides Linux and other open stuff is on P2P/torrent networks and I did never reed statements like “HEHEH we are pirating and make more illegal stuff” on any forum especially that some of thus sides don’t have forums or any commentary laving system.

Provide a test of channeling this piracy essence or the argument must be abandoned.


You did use the word “they” didn’t you mean “the” because the downloader is the person that we are examining and he accepted the download for a free sample like a free sample of a food in a restaurant and didn’t distribute it simply downloaded for personal use.
The uploders are not of interest for this scenario.


JillSwift wrote:

You sure did beat up that straw man.


 


Maybe , maybe I’m warning you from avoiding the burden of proof and assume something. “Lets start with the position that there is a god” , “Lets start with the position that the earth is flat” , “lets start with the position that our lows are infallible” .
Its bold of me to clamed that the legal system contains self contradictions however I have provided a scenario where this is exactly the case if you don’t accept this accept my humble excuse and the fact that the low making system did contain and in many countries contain things like regulations agents homosexuality denying a holy text and more. If thus aren’t indicators that the legal system is nothing more then a set of practices that can be the source of the “appeal  to authority ” fallacy then I don’t know what is.

 

JillSwift wrote:

You're again guilty of reductio ad absurdum.


 

I’m sorry I don’t know exactly how to understand this is this a agreement to my statement or a kind of rejection Sticking out tongue. Its hard to tell..

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The site I get my movies

The site I get my movies from is actually called "The Pirate Bay. "


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:Sorry

carx wrote:

Sorry that’s not a argument Laughing out loud you are assuming something you need to have actual prove or a test. Besides Linux and other open stuff is on P2P/torrent networks and I did never reed statements like “HEHEH we are pirating and make more illegal stuff” on any forum especially that some of thus sides don’t have forums or any commentary laving system.

Provide a test of channeling this piracy essence or the argument must be abandoned.

I have - go read the damn sites. Just because you've not read any of it before is in no way a refutation.

And as MattShizzle points out: One of the biggest sites flat-out calls themselves pirates, "The Pirate Bay", using an anti-piracy symbol from the 70s.


carx wrote:
You did use the word “they” didn’t you mean “the” because the downloader is the person that we are examining and he accepted the download for a free sample like a free sample of a food in a restaurant and didn’t distribute it simply downloaded for personal use.
The uploders are not of interest for this scenario.
You just moved the goalposts on me. Raids on the downloaders don't make a lot of sense for quite a range of reasons and I'm not defending them.

carx wrote:
Maybe , maybe I’m warning you from avoiding the burden of proof and assume something. “Lets start with the position that there is a god” , “Lets start with the position that the earth is flat” , “lets start with the position that our lows are infallible” .
Its bold of me to clamed that the legal system contains self contradictions however I have provided a scenario where this is exactly the case if you don’t accept this accept my humble excuse and the fact that the low making system did contain and in many countries contain things like regulations agents homosexuality denying a holy text and more. If thus aren’t indicators that the legal system is nothing more then a set of practices that can be the source of the “appeal  to authority ” fallacy then I don’t know what is.
I don't really know what you're arguing here.

 

carx wrote:
I’m sorry I don’t know exactly how to understand this is this a agreement to my statement or a kind of rejection Sticking out tongue. Its hard to tell..
It's a rejection. You've reduced the argument to an absurd proportion.

 You're treating this as if it were black-and-white. It's not, there are many concerns to keep in mind. I do not argue in favor of the RIAA or MPAA and the draconian tactics they employ, nor do I argue in favor of the laws that allow them to act in that way.

I do aregue in favor of limited, breif copyright to allow the person who had the idea they are trying to market the opportunity to do so.

Also, I'm a Linux user, so stop throwing OpenSource at me, I understand all that. I also understand (like so many fail to) that those licences are also restrictive. Read one sometime, it's no the anarchy people belive it to be.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I read recently that

I read recently that applying the term "pirates" to people who copy music/movies/software SERIOUSLY pisses off people who make their living on ships. They deal with actual pirates who are nothing like in the movies - people that would have no problem killing everyone on a ship to steal what's on it.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Luckily, my conscience has

Luckily, my conscience has an exception to a copyright, so yes, I don't take it very seriously.
It is necessary, because my picky taste for films and music mostly makes me soon regret the money spent on them. Criminal, action, romance, commedy, musical, pop, rock, hip-hop/rap, metal, jazz, r n'b, d n'b, techno, tekkno, and computer games, either too violent or demaning on computer, etc, most of these human inventions doesn't interest me. This also means, that I've got relatively little to piratize. I sell nothing, I don't distribute further, and I couldn't even buy most of the stuff anyway, if I'd have no P2P, so it's not that the corporations would actually lose any money on me.

The real data pirates are people, who has a secret rooms full of computers, which are full of CD burners, and so they produce and sell thousands of illegal copies. These are usually to be found in greater Vietnamese marketplaces, and the recognition is easy - look at a bottom side of a CD or DVD you're trying to buy. If it's not silver, there's a still-room somewhere nearby.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They sell them in the ghetto

They sell them in the ghetto here.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:They sell

MattShizzle wrote:
They sell them in the ghetto here.
Yeah, here too.

Is that acceptable, Carx? That these folks can use cheap duplicators to enable them to sell CDs for pennies on the dollar? Where creating the music, recording it, editing and balancing it is a great deal of effort and expense?

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Luckily,

Luminon wrote:

Luckily, my conscience has an exception to a copyright, so yes, I don't take it very seriously.
It is necessary, because my picky taste for films and music mostly makes me soon regret the money spent on them. Criminal, action, romance, commedy, musical, pop, rock, hip-hop/rap, metal, jazz, r n'b, d n'b, techno, tekkno, and computer games, either too violent or demaning on computer, etc, most of these human inventions doesn't interest me. This also means, that I've got relatively little to piratize. I sell nothing, I don't distribute further, and I couldn't even buy most of the stuff anyway, if I'd have no P2P, so it's not that the corporations would actually lose any money on me.

The real data pirates are people, who has a secret rooms full of computers, which are full of CD burners, and so they produce and sell thousands of illegal copies. These are usually to be found in greater Vietnamese marketplaces, and the recognition is easy - look at a bottom side of a CD or DVD you're trying to buy. If it's not silver, there's a still-room somewhere nearby.

Nice to know I didn’t know this nice Laughing out loud however how about stuff downloaded from the net there is no way of  distinguishing a exact duplicate of a avi or other files like mp3 downloaded from Itunes for instance VS P2P

JillSwift wrote:


It's a rejection. You've reduced the argument to an absurd proportion.



Deer JillSwift I seams you don’t understand logic you committed countless logical fallacies and even stated that „I’m wrong because I’m write”.  You need to understand your personal position or opinion is irrelevant. Regardless if I agree wit something or not its NOT a argument and a logical fallacy to use this personal experience for evidence .

You also seam to be in the assumption I’m debating your personal believes with is completely wrong I’m debating the concept of IP and the current legal structure nothing else.

Further more its bizarre of you to say that “I’m wrong because I’m write “ RaA (Reductio_ad_absurdum) is a common tool in logic and because you have admitted that IP leads to the absurdity that you are equally the owner and a pirate its impossible and my position is write. I urge you to learn logic starting here :

“””
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd&quotEye-wink, also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

It makes use of the law of non-contradiction — a statement cannot be both true and false. In some cases it may also make use of the law of excluded middle — a statement must be either true or false. The phrase is traceable back to the Greek ἡ εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγή (hē eis átopon apagōgḗ), meaning "reduction to the absurd", often used by Aristotle.

In mathematics and formal logic, this refers specifically to an argument where a contradiction is derived from some assumption (thus showing that the assumption must be false). However, Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. This is a comparatively weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion. Such arguments also risk degenerating into strawman arguments, an informal fallacy caused when an argument or theory is twisted by the opposing side to appear ridiculous.
“””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

And here
 http://www.logicalfallacies.info/irrelevantappeals.html 
to get a basic of logical fallacies especially that all of them can be derived from RaA.
I will assume that you understand logic in your further posts and will not make more fallacies like thus here :

JillSwift wrote:


I have - go read the damn sites. Just because you've not read any of it before is in no way a refutation.
And as MattShizzle points out: One of the biggest sites flat-out calls themselves pirates, "The Pirate Bay", using an anti-piracy symbol from the 70s.



I have seen a poster commercial for a super market chain it featured a pirate and a promotional phrase like “get the pirate goods” is this evidence that every article in this store is stolen ??? According to your previous statement the answer is YES however in the real world we don’t use your type of inquisition tactics (RaA for your evidence again). Regardless of this you again committed a logical fallacy a sweeping generalization  you assume every site that features illegal content uses the word pirate in their site and every pirate downloads from the pirate bay site however because there are more sits and pirate bay is not the only one your arguments fail big time. And If I did find a download of a linux distribution that is legal in this side do I assume its illegal because its on that irate site with that logo of piracy from the 70 ???!!!! RaA Again owns you if your analysis is something different then mental masturbation you need to conclude that linux is at the same time legal and illegal according to your logic (a text book example of a RaA).
The question remains :
Show the method of determining who put a file on a P2P network for the common man that is downloading it. I might invoke the close from polish civil low (I assume in the USA it’s the same) that assumes that every buyer or receiver unknowing or misled of the origin of the product can not be prosecuted for theft  if the product have been shown to stolen. If not then do you prosecute a men for buying a apple that haze been stolen regardless of the good intentions  of the man ? (it’s a nice one because you have civil low VS civil low , your position or opinion is irrelevant on this one my dear JillSwift)

JillSwift wrote:


MattShizzle wrote:
They sell them in the ghetto here.
Yeah, here too.

Is that acceptable, Carx? That these folks can use cheap duplicators to enable them to sell CDs for pennies on the dollar? Where creating the music, recording it, editing and balancing it is a great deal of effort and expense?

 


You use  a “appeal to pity” it’s a logical fallacy ! Your rezoning is beyond help and sanity “O look at the poor slave owners how they have no money and how they are poor because they don’t have slaves D: we need to help them and institute slavery”.  Your rezoning is wrong if not you need to accept my example argument and support slavery or how about this “O the pore slaves we need to save them from oppression” now slavery is  moral an not moral conclusion pity is not a argument for any thing.
The basics are this if you invoke emotions you commit a logical fallacy , the RaR(Reductio_ad_absurdum) shows that this type of sentence can be used to defend every type of position and mostly self contradicting positions.


JillSwift wrote:


I do not argue in favor of the RIAA or MPAA and the draconian tactics they employ, nor do I argue in favor of the laws that allow them to act in that way.
I do aregue in favor of limited, breif copyright to allow the person who had the idea they are trying to market the opportunity to do so.
 




And this is a red herring I’m not concerned with your opinion and nether with my own ! If we are debating the validity of IP your opinion is irrelevant you implied a question why is IP contradictory and we are having this debate about the validity of IP. A red herring is nothing then trying to run away and throw more fallacies especial that you have to proof the existence of copyright/IP before arguing for it its named the burden of proof.
If you wish to stop this debate your free to do this , you can use sentences like “personally I think this is a little bit insane” however you are implying that your personal opinion is somehow a argument and this is simply wrong (Do I need to use RaA to show this ?) .

JillSwift wrote:


Also, I'm a Linux user, so stop throwing OpenSource at me, I understand all that. I also understand (like so many fail to) that those licences are also restrictive. Read one sometime, it's no the anarchy people belive it to be.


Its named using evidence agents a argument deer JillSwift the absurdity that I somehow use this agents you is simply wrong. I don’t argue agents you I argue agents a position and you or you preferences are irrelevant and Open Source is a important peace of evidence showing that there is something legal on a P2P network and a statement like  “Only pirates use P2P” , “Every thing on a P2P is pirated” fails do to the RaA.
 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I see it as sticking it to

I see it as sticking it to the man.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:your position or

carx wrote:
your position or opinion is irrelevant on this one my dear JillSwift
From where I sit, you keep changing the subject of the argument.

You describe a logical fallacy (reductio ad absurdum) as a useful method of argument. And post an article reinforcing it as a fallacy.

You don't understand that it is crucial that both my opinion and position as well as your opinion and position are known so we can know what we're talking about and arguing from.

To top all that off you're being demeaning referring to me as "dear".

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Well theft is theft unlike

Well theft is theft unlike someone people I don't think there is any difference in stealing £/$ 5 from a homeless man or the same amount a large corporation.

And there is zero difference between shop lifting a cd and downloading one, well no legal difference there is a difference in the change of getting caught which is why so many people do it (it says a lot about morality through that the stick of getting/caught punished is a big motivator in how people behave)

  


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How can you compare taking

How can you compare taking money from an actual person where it could be the difference between life and death and taking it from a greedy corporation with huge ammounts of money, and who's utter annihalation would actually be of great benefit to all mankind?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:How can

MattShizzle wrote:

How can you compare taking money from an actual person where it could be the difference between life and death and taking it from a greedy corporation with huge ammounts of money, and who's utter annihalation would actually be of great benefit to all mankind?

Very basis of law is that we are equal under it, I don't know if any judge would treat the person who did the theft any different based on who the victim was, through society generally does tend to be lenient on criminals if their circumstances make their crime more likely (ie a homeless person stealing a cd to sell for food who generally I hope be treated leniently) but that doesnt apply to most software/music pirates/theives who can afford the product but choose not to

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a legalist.

I'm not a legalist. I see making sure these corporations make less money as a good thing.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Corporate profits are

Corporate profits are basically what determines whether I have a job or not, if they earn less they are less likely to employ me and hence I will be poorer (far poorer than if I actually paid for music Smiling

And if taxes properly (yes I know they sometimes dodge them) is what pays for hospitals, roads etc

 

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:carx

JillSwift wrote:

carx wrote:
your position or opinion is irrelevant on this one my dear JillSwift
From where I sit, you keep changing the subject of the argument.

You describe a logical fallacy (reductio ad absurdum) as a useful method of argument. And post an article reinforcing it as a fallacy.

You don't understand that it is crucial that both my opinion and position as well as your opinion and position are known so we can know what we're talking about and arguing from.

To top all that off you're being demeaning referring to me as "dear".

 

 

 

 

Dear JillSwift it seams you have problems understanding the article . Place quote the article saying RaA is a logical fallacy. There is a little reference that its not a strong argument ( and can deteriorate if not used properly ) however you have agreed that copyright becomes absurd therefore fulfilling the criteria for a RaA.

 

Place dear JillSwift try to understand I’m showing you my challenging of a concept and personalizing with concepts ends up in identifying them for a part of yourself like “I will not abandon flat earth theory because that is what I believe ” I’m debating your concepts NOT you. You are irrelevant you can act like a apologist or giving counter arguments like I often do analyzing concept for my self arguing objectively for and agents them and for then accepting a conclusion. However you are not your believes or concepts I’m still debating the general notion of copyright absurdities you implied a question that I explain my second posts with is somehow different from my OP however this is the only change. Next time please provide sources and quotes were my article show that RaA is a logical fallacy.

 

I’m using the phrase Dear like in “Dear sir or madam “ because I  wont to sound  friendly my responses sometimes can be interpreted for offensive owning without it , that is why I’m using it.

 

mrjonno wrote:


Well theft is theft unlike someone people I don't think there is any difference in stealing £/$ 5 from a homeless man or the same amount a large corporation.

And there is zero difference between shop lifting a cd and downloading one, well no legal difference there is a difference in the change of getting caught which is why so many people do it (it says a lot about morality through that the stick of getting/caught punished is a big motivator in how people behave)

 




Interesting lets analyze this hypothesis I have a bike I get my bike stolen now I have no bike and the thief haze the bike. I did make a music soundtrack now someone simply uses it in something else (audio book/film) according to the low he committed theft however I still have the music it has not vanished from my HDD or CD so in our previous example if it were the same type of “theft “ I will still have my bike and the “thief” will have it too. The silly notion of using the word theft regardless of its definition is simply a retarded word phrase to persuaded the senile and retarded judges (that are equally persuadable like every stupid voting human on this planet) that have problems understanding basic concepts like solid , liquid and gas (true story from my life ).

There is a nice parody saying that every time that you illegally download pirated IP from the internet a CD or DVD vanishes magically from the shop , ironically this is exactly the criteria that reality needs to fulfill to name duplicating IP  theft.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Fine Carx, you want a highly

Fine Carx, you want a highly structured debate rather than a casual discussion.

First, pick a subject and stick with it. "Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are not interchangeable terms. If you are going to discuss both, please be clear about which you are referring to.

On copyright: The current state of copyright law is, as you've argued, illogical. However, as the term implies, the right to copy must be protected for a time so that the original producer of the work can recoup costs and make an initial profit. This is part of the well established effort-for-reward system currently in use. The work itself isn't protected after the copyright period, since there really is no point. If another creator of works (or aliens!) come up with similar or identical works... well, it makes no difference. Their right to copy their own work is still protected.

On Intellectual Property: I don't have any defense for intellectual property.

 

Note: Please do not call me "dear".

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Interesting lets

Quote:

Interesting lets analyze this hypothesis I have a bike I get my bike stolen now I have no bike and the thief haze the bike. I did make a music soundtrack now someone simply uses it in something else (audio book/film) according to the low he committed theft however I still have the music it has not vanished from my HDD or CD so in our previous example if it were the same type of “theft “ I will still have my bike and the “thief” will have it too. The silly notion of using the word theft regardless of its definition is simply a retarded word phrase to persuaded the senile and retarded judges (that are equally persuadable like every stupid voting human on this planet) that have problems understanding basic concepts like solid , liquid and gas (true story from my life ).

There is a nice parody saying that every time that you illegally download pirated IP from the internet a CD or DVD vanishes magically from the shop , ironically this is exactly the criteria that reality needs to fulfill to name duplicating IP  theft.

Theft is the stealing of someone property, property is NOT definied as some thing that can be physically held, its defined by the law, so the law defines a bicycle as someone property it also defines a music companies record, hence their is no difference in the crime.

Through interstingly enough the dictionary defintion these days of property does include

9.a written work, play, movie, etc., bought or optioned for commercial production or distribution.
'


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: Is someone

carx wrote:

 

Is someone taking copyright seriously ? I mean we all know its punishable and don’t take the risk however can you smell the bullshit ?

 

My question is directed at atheists because I know how the brainwashed theists simply have no thinking skills.

I personally don't take copyrights and patents seriously. I am aware that society does, and have adopted certain habits to avoid being sued or some such, but if I had a choice they wouldn't exist in the first place.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The disrespect to copyright

The disrespect to copyright may have a psychological cause. Our ancestors were hunters and pickers, when they wanted something, they just picked it from a tree, bush, or an animal herd. Downloading is just as easy.
Furthermore, it's a copy, as Carx said, a copied CD doesn't magically disappear from the shop, so it seems to be all OK. (though the shops doesn't work like that, our psychology does)

There are honest people, who really buy the albums from their favorite artists, mainly in their fan communities. The community around a record label (Twisted Records for example) makes this all more personal, and stealing from the divine Simon himself becomes a shameful act.
This personal approach, combined with having a job and thus money, is a possible solution to the illegal copying. Maybe it needs a really interesting person behind this all - would I be more loyal to, let's say, Madonna, who's already disgustingly rich and pampered, or to Simon, the genius of psychedelic music? Simon is unique, but I see no difference between Madonna, Shakira, Pink, Britney, Avril, and so on, and so on.

Btw, I believe that my favorite artists aren't greedy people who would want an unemployed guy to ruin himself, or not listen to their music at all (thus not spreading their glory as I do).

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Carx: I was brushing up on

Carx: I was brushing up on research for copyright and successfully torpedoed my own argument. I can't edit the above post, so just imagine it says: "Forget it. I got nothin' here. Copyright and 'Intellectual Property' both fail to serve a definable purpose and can be used to abuse other folk's rights." Ok? Eye-wink


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The morality of artists or

The morality of artists or record producers is absolutely of no relevance to whether it is ok to pirate/steal from them. It really is as simple as that. If you take the argument that record producers are filthy rich therefore its ok to steal from them that the path leads to 'she was a slag therefore its ok to rape her' which to be honest is what some people do think (not saying they exist on this board but thats where you end up).

I just find it very hard to see why people  can't understand this, I think there is some group psychology involved, all my mates steal music, they arent all bad people therefore its ok if I steal music.

 

One other thing record producers think where these is no shame or chance of punishment their customers are likely to be dishonest, guess what they are totally right. Show me a shop with no security and expensive goods and I will show you an empty shop by the end of the day. Human beings are totaly bastards any form of law/society which doesnt assume this is doomed to failure

 

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I have to agree it isn't

I have to agree it isn't stealing because they still have it. I totally disagree with the concept of "intellectual property. " I do think they deserve it too for charging so much for all these years.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:carx wrote: Is

Vastet wrote:

carx wrote:

 

Is someone taking copyright seriously ? I mean we all know its punishable and don’t take the risk however can you smell the bullshit ?

 

My question is directed at atheists because I know how the brainwashed theists simply have no thinking skills.

I personally don't take copyrights and patents seriously. I am aware that society does, and have adopted certain habits to avoid being sued or some such, but if I had a choice they wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Can you clarify?

 

I am part of 'society' and a part time photographer.

Do you mean that you'd be happy to use my photography to help you sell something of yours without acknowledging my work or providing any compensation to me if you could get away with it?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view. You say that if you had a choice these protections would not exist, so, if you had a choice what sort of system would we have instead?

edited to add what follows:

The RRS site is coyrighted. Would it be a good thing if I, as well as 500 other people, could just clone this site and start our own with the same name (causing a huge loss to the original RRS and mass confusion) ?

Again, just curious...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
nikimoto wrote: I

nikimoto wrote:

 

Vastet wrote:

I personally don't take copyrights and patents seriously. I am aware that society does, and have adopted certain habits to avoid being sued or some such, but if I had a choice they wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Can you clarify?

 

I am part of 'society' and a part time photographer.

Do you mean that you'd be happy to use my photography to help you sell something of yours without acknowledging my work or providing any compensation to me if you could get away with it?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view. You say that if you had a choice these protections would not exist, so, if you had a choice what sort of system would we have instead?

edited to add what follows:

The RRS site is coyrighted. Would it be a good thing if I, as well as 500 other people, could just clone this site and start our own with the same name (causing a huge loss to the original RRS and mass confusion) ?

Again, just curious...

Under current circumstances(ie: the capitalist society we inhabit today), I would not use your or anyone elses work to promote something I had done. If I did, you proving it would hurt me significantly, so it would be rather stupid to do so. Under the ideal circumstances(ie: no capitalism), copyrights and patents would have no purpose and removing them would not hinder the advancement of society as having them does now. I would have no problem using them then, but of course I wouldn't be making a profit off of it either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
nikimoto wrote: am part

nikimoto wrote:

 

  am part of 'society' and a part time photographer.

Do you mean that you'd be happy to use my photography to help you sell something of yours without acknowledging my work or providing any compensation to me if you could get away with it?

 

O appeal to pity ! What you do is irrelevant to the fact that something exists or is nonexistent.  Place see one of my challenges on mathematical and logical ground simply disproving IP. Or in other words how would you feel if someone on day walked to you and told you that the photography  you have taken completely legally of a rock in nature is a piracy and did prove it because you simply repeated the number raster  that someone registered before you ?

 

 

PS : you assume that IP is valid remember you need to prove its existence first every position is invalid until proven otherwise that includes god , the earths roundness or flatness and other propositions we name this the Burdon of proof .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Intellectual Property and Copyright

Let me see if I can figure out the confusion here. If I create a book and copyright the book, bascially the characters, story line etc within the story, even though the possibilty that one day someone on the earth would have created the exact some book, doesn't rule out the fact that I wrote it first and therefore have the right to make profit on it therefore contributing to economic growth, basically recoup the cost of the book. That's pretty much the incentive behind the copyright laws and IP laws. If someone is going to bother creating something, be it a work of art, or an engine, there better be a way for the person to recoup the cost involved in making that idea a reality.

However there are many ways to abuse the system, especially in the software domain and music domain. With that said, both IP and Copyright are limited, so that eventually they will enter public domain allowing anyone to use the product for their benefit.

Now even though your math maybe correct, it really doesn't apply in the real world. Where if there is no way to recoup the cost of making an invention, art, etc, etc, etc why bother to make it, especially in today's society.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Let me see

latincanuck wrote:


Let me see if I can figure out the confusion here. If I create a book and copyright the book, bascially the characters, story line etc within the story, even though the possibilty that one day someone on the earth would have created the exact some book, doesn't rule out the fact that I wrote it first and therefore have the right to make profit on it therefore contributing to economic growth, basically recoup the cost of the book. That's pretty much the incentive behind the copyright laws and IP laws. If someone is going to bother creating something, be it a work of art, or an engine, there better be a way for the person to recoup the cost involved in making that idea a reality.

However there are many ways to abuse the system, especially in the software domain and music domain. With that said, both IP and Copyright are limited, so that eventually they will enter public domain allowing anyone to use the product for their benefit.

Now even though your math maybe correct, it really doesn't apply in the real world. Where if there is no way to recoup the cost of making an invention, art, etc, etc, etc why bother to make it, especially in today's society.



 

 

 

I think the word “create” is improper because after a while if you exceed the all possibilities limit you will just copy something theoretically copyrighted or in the public domain. Actually in your scenario if you arrive  the final completion of all possible works and their works expire and go into the public domain everything will be in the  public domain and you will be able to copy everyone’s work because even if he did “**create**” it its already in the public domain.

 

And copyright is perpetually extended in the USA . A nice example would be Linux or open movies that don’t use copyright instead reeling on damnations or predomination’s in the case of open movies.

 

This stated I reframe from discussing policies I simply like to stay on the better ground of math , logic , truths and profs . However a nice example showing my scenario absolute realistic is the sound recording industry , how many recordings of a glass braking can you have until they start to repeat or stop sounding like braking glass ?  Remember the interest is on only he exact sound of braking glass not a recording of a glass bouncing and then braking . The radio and movie industry relay on exact sounds in cretin moments for their production.

 

PS: You assume the existence of IP maybe you define it first and then start to prove its existence of this concept . Especially its funny because math dictates that copyright cant referee to creating something because if the possibilities end you wont be able to create regardless of the fact that you “create a work” therefore the definition of it  would fail legendarily .

JillSwift wrote:


Carx: I was brushing up on research for copyright and successfully torpedoed my own argument. I can't edit the above post, so just imagine it says: "Forget it. I got nothin' here. Copyright and 'Intellectual Property' both fail to serve a definable purpose and can be used to abuse other folk's rights." Ok? Eye-wink



Yes OK  , thank you for the discussion . I’m delighted to see scientific scrutiny in another person I’m often argue with my self to determine with position is simply the logically correct one . Thank you for the discussion.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:JillSwift

carx wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Carx: I was brushing up on research for copyright and successfully torpedoed my own argument. I can't edit the above post, so just imagine it says: "Forget it. I got nothin' here. Copyright and 'Intellectual Property' both fail to serve a definable purpose and can be used to abuse other folk's rights." Ok? Eye-wink
Yes OK  , thank you for the discussion . I’m delighted to see scientific scrutiny in another person I’m often argue with my self to determine with position is simply the logically correct one . Thank you for the discussion.
And thank you! Laughing out loud

So, allow me then to introduce the concept of "Protection of results of individual and group effort".

The idea is that when an individual or a group create something that creation is protected from duplication by others in order that the creators can recoup the costs of their efforts, and continue to profit from that effort in order to fuel further efforts.

This does not protect the information pattern of the product because that would be silly! I mean, the pattern has always and will always exist, mathematically speaking. It does protect the efforts required to locate these particularly useful of valuable patterns from the infinite sea of possible patterns.

Human effort in the discovery, polishing, and manufacturing particular expressions of these information patterns is recognized as valuable. The value is returned to the creator individual or group as resources (often in the form of money) in trade for the results of those efforts.

We recognize that allowing others to take the results of that effort and duplicate it would infringe on the rights held by the original manufacturer by shifting payment from the original manufacturer to the usurping duplicator.

Therefore we choose to protect the rights of the original manufacturer by placing the act of duplicating another's work outside the realm of acceptable behavior. The task of identifying the work for adjudication would be as simple as using the information pattern itself.

We also recognize that we do not with to grant control over the actual information pattern, which granting this effort protection in perpetuity would in effect be.

Therefore this effort protection would be limited to some reasonable period of time (say, 17 years or so).

Thank you. Smiling

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Sounds interesting however

 

Sounds interestingly reasonable   however will people who can demonstrate that they did record the same pattern be granted equal protection like the first creator ?

Think of sound of braking glass. And what will happen after all patterns enter public domain will duplicating a pattern that someone did obtain and registered will it be named using the public domain or be handled differently ? Lets assume that we can proof with 100% certainty stuff like this and ignore the methods for one second.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:nikimoto

carx wrote:

nikimoto wrote:

 

  am part of 'society' and a part time photographer.

Do you mean that you'd be happy to use my photography to help you sell something of yours without acknowledging my work or providing any compensation to me if you could get away with it?

 

O appeal to pity ! What you do is irrelevant to the fact that something exists or is nonexistent.  Place see one of my challenges on mathematical and logical ground simply disproving IP. Or in other words how would you feel if someone on day walked to you and told you that the photography  you have taken completely legally of a rock in nature is a piracy and did prove it because you simply repeated the number raster  that someone registered before you ?

 

 

PS : you assume that IP is valid remember you need to prove its existence first every position is invalid until proven otherwise that includes god , the earths roundness or flatness and other propositions we name this the Burdon of proof .

 

I did not make any appeal.

 

I simply asked Vastet some questions about his or her position, given certain facts, regarding certain scenarios.

 

Back later.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
nikimoto wrote: I did not

nikimoto wrote:

 

I did not make any appeal.

 

 

Go here http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtopity.html and reed what a appeal to pity is.

 


Appeal to Pity

Explanation

An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion--specifically, sympathy--rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.

Examples

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear example of an appeal to pity:

�A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.�

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:nikimoto

carx wrote:

nikimoto wrote:

 

I did not make any appeal.

 

 

Go here http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtopity.html and reed what a appeal to pity is.

 


 

Appeal to Pity

Explanation

An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion--specifically, sympathy--rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.

Examples

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear example of an appeal to pity:

�A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.�

 

I have to agree with nikimoto here. Nikimoto was not making an argument, he or she was simply asking a question. If an argument had been made, then I would agree that it was containing an appeal to pity. However, an argument was not made. So no appeal occurred.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:Sounds

carx wrote:
Sounds interestingly reasonable   however will people who can demonstrate that they did record the same pattern be granted equal protection like the first creator ?
No. It's somewhat unfair, but for practicality's sake some marker had to be used to represent the effort of the original manufacturer. This was already recognized as a problem and is why there is a time limit.

carx wrote:
Think of sound of braking glass. And what will happen after all patterns enter public domain will duplicating a pattern that someone did obtain and registered will it be named using the public domain or be handled differently ? Lets assume that we can proof with 100% certainty stuff like this and ignore the methods for one second.
After all patterns enter the public domain? At that point it's simply impossible to tag any new effort. I would suggest that they then turn to UUIDs, but there would be no point, those patterns would have been used up already, too.

I guess we'd have to see it like it's a spent reserve. It's simply no longer possible to generate anything that can be protected and the industry will collapse.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Breaking glass

You could not copyright the sound of breaking glass in the instant of recording it per se. What you can do is Copyright a device the immulates the sound of glass breaking, but you cannot copyright glassbreaking. It's far to general and well it's not an idea per se, just like you cannot copyright words and letters unless it relate to commercial applications, such as Coca cola, however I can still use the the word Coca Cola in literature, I just cannot use it to represent my company per se.. Again as much as you want to stay in the realm of logic and math, the math that your applying does not really apply to everyday life and reality of the function of our economy and the laws regarding copyrights and IP.

With that said, IP is in regards to abstract properties, refers to creations of the mind such as musical, literary, and artistic works; inventions; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce, this includes copyrights, pantents and trademarks.

Now I have defined it, I can prove that I created a symbol that is not used by others in commercial applications, same goes for musical works, artistic works and of course inventions are are useful and non-obvious. All these can be proven that I am the first one to do so, even if someone MAY created it ONE day, I did it first and therefore as well was the first to copyright/patent/trademark the creation. To which I should be allowed to make money off it it to recoup any losses occured.

With that said I cannot prove you have rights, right to freedom of speech for example, it is an idea that is enforced as if it really is something. But really it is an idea, and abstract concept that is applied to everyday life. Reality is you really don't have this right, I could simply hunt you down and kill or have u put in prison or anything else I deemed good to keep you quite. However society and our governments operate on the concept that these abstract ideas actually do mean something. The same goes with copyright and IP, however they can be abused as I stated before.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I have to

MattShizzle wrote:

I have to agree it isn't stealing because they still have it. I totally disagree with the concept of "intellectual property. " I do think they deserve it too for charging so much for all these years.

You can't honestly tell me that if you came up with an idea that stood to make you loads of money if you copyrighted/patented it that you wouldn't.

We humans don't tend to purposely acquire things that don't provide us with some kind of benefit - tangible or intangible. And it's expected that we repay the source of that benefit - usually with money.

By saying that you're "sticking it to the man" by not paying for movies/music, you're assuming that everyine who works for the movie studio/record label is making tons of money. But that's far from true. There are plenty of hourly and low-salary workers as well. And who's going to get laid off first if the company starts underperforming? Hint - not the multimillionaire CEO.

So, is it fair that a CEO make $20 million per year working 40 hours a week while someone else in the same company makes minimum wage? No. But are you making things better by not paying for copyrighted material? No.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It makes the companies make

It makes the companies make less money right? Don't be a shill for the pieces of garbage at the RIAA/MPAA/ESA - every one of those assholes in those organizations should be tortured to death. I wish the poor and working people would rise up and take over the country and execute the vast majority of CEOs and redistribute their money to the people that have little or nothing. That's the reason it makes me happy when the stock market goes down - it means rich people are making less or maybe even losing money.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:It makes

MattShizzle wrote:

It makes the companies make less money right?

Yes. And when the companies start making less money, they start laying people off.

 

MattShizzle wrote:

Don't be a shill for the pieces of garbage at the RIAA/MPAA/ESA - every one of those assholes in those organizations should be tortured to death.

Really? Are you serious?

 

MattShizzle wrote:

I wish the poor and working people would rise up and take over the country and execute the vast majority of CEOs and redistribute their money to the people that have little or nothing.

That's probably not a workable plan.

 

MattShizzle wrote:

That's the reason it makes me happy when the stock market goes down - it means rich people are making less or maybe even losing money.

And average people start losing their retirement money. It's not all about the rich people. Regular people are tied in to the financial system too.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote:MattShizzle

geirj wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Don't be a shill for the pieces of garbage at the RIAA/MPAA/ESA - every one of those assholes in those organizations should be tortured to death.

Really? Are you serious?

 

 

Absolutely - people here a long time have seen me post stuff like this regularly. I'd like to see capitalism utterly destroyed.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't destroy it

I wouldn't destroy it completely, but I certainly would see it removed as the foundation of human economies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I wouldn't

Vastet wrote:

I wouldn't destroy it completely, but I certainly would see it removed as the foundation of human economies.

I think american capitalism is going to be reworked, especially since the entire financial meltdown that is occuring, regulation is the key, unchecked greed gets u into lots of trouble.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Having way too much money

Having way too much money concentrated at the top isn't good for the economy.