Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
No, no backtracking was necessary. It was a question, you acknowledge that yourself above ("ask such a pejorative question").
The question, at the time it was asked, was not unfounded. It was in response to this:
I still see no reason why I shouldn't accept this as a "hint" that you might feel the same way as those committing the piracy you "wouldn't feel too badly about". Why wouldn't you feel bad about it unless you personally felt there was some justification for it? Hence the question.
You have subsequently tried to explain yourself with:
Which does little but provide another "hint" that you might personally feel 40 years is long enough for copyright protection. (Note that your qualification "particularly" does not completely exclude non-billionaires, it only suggests that your sympathy level may vary with the wealth and health of the victim.)
It's not actually a difficult question and I fail to see anything all that insulting in it, despite my phrasing. There are people that feel copyright should be a flat period much shorter than 40 years, and they are entitled to have that opinion. There is no particular shame in it.
Perhaps you dislike that the question jumps to the result of the products being obtained for free. Given that the examples your offered are still available, there seems little other reason for suggesting piracy in these cases would be excusable.
To correct any appearance of me putting words in your mouth you only needed to answer the question directly - which, I notice, you still haven't done.
|
You're cherry picking your quotes dude. I notice you conveniently excluded the part where I said, quote: "I'm no fan of piracy, as I've said before artists and those who work with them should be paid and my concern from a consumer's viewpoint would be that rampant piracy would lead to less choice of entertainment content..." I think that pretty clearly states my view on piracy in a straitforward manner that anyone could understand. So just let it go already. If you are unsure as to what it was that I said, perhaps you should go back and review.
That said, you demanded an answer to your rather tactless and rude initial question, so in the interest of facilitating the termination of this increasingly tiresome dialogue, here you go: I do not personally have a sense of entitlement that I would feel the desire to pirate anything that is still under copyright. Because you seem so very keen to know my views, I will elaborate. My main selfish stake in this is content creation. I like to consume lots of content, so insofar as copyright encourages content creation, I'm in favor of it.
I do feel the current terms are ludicrously long. But as I am a civilized person, and not an anarchist, I obey copyright laws. I do feel artists should get paid, and I can afford what I want anyway, so I have no incentive to pirate. For example, I bought every single Beatles Remaster when they came out even though undoubtedly someone probably posted them somewhere. So Sir Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and whomever George was married to padded their coffers further. The Who I have always felt are overrated. That's just me. So I have neither purchased nor pirated any of their material. I did listen to "Baba O'Reilly" at a friend's house once. Maybe I should send Roger Daltrey a check.
If you want to know my mother's maiden name, my social security number, credit card info, etc, please by all means just ask and i would be happy to share. I'm an open book
