So now we are going from debating this issue to pointing fingers and throwing accusations ? So now I take the stuff from people for free ? This is as ludicrous as me saying that you are paid by the publishers to defend their interests in internet forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
It sounds to me like you just to take stuff for free from people who worked hard to produce it. But since you know this is wrong, you feel the need to come up with specious arguments to support it.
|
I don't know if this is a continuation of your personal accusations against me but FYI I don't have cable because I am not interested by the deals they offer and I don't have the slightest idea how to pirate cable. (So I must be stealing from them by not agreeing to their deals I suppose
)
You must remember that this is an opinion and you cannot impose it on the entire world. My definition of stealing is when something is taken from me and I cannot use it anymore because I don't have it anymore.
You put the system of exchange of goods for money above everything else so by your definition people that cannot afford to pay for food MUST watch their kids starve to death because (in this case it would be actual stealing) stealing food is wrong and they must pay whatever price food companies demand. Now you'll probably argue that this is not the same issue. However the principle is the same, if we accept that the exchange of goods (whatever goods) for money is the ultimate universal truth then people that cannot afford the price demanded by food companies MUST die, it's the only "moral" choice ...
Well I try to transcend those concepts which some people wants to see as universal truths giving them the right to impose it on others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
The whole copyright-infringement-isn't-stealing canard is a good example. Stealing *does not* require that the owner be deprived of the good. (Some, but by no means all definitions of theft do). If you steal cable service from your provider, they are still able to provide as much cable to everyone else as they were before. But you are still stealing.
|
Morals are subjective. Please remember that.
I could also say that by your argument, you give all companies moral license to do whatever they want with their product (see the food argument)
Consider for a second the imaginary character Robin Hood. To say things in a simplistic way, this guy took from the rich to give to the poor. So I'm curious, in your opinion, is this guy right or wrong ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
But it does seem like you just want moral license to take whatever you want from whoever you can get it from, and will use any one of a number of post-hoc rationalizations: (1) it's not *stealing*; (2) all artists are rich; (3) it's the evil publishers; (4) etc.
|