What is piracy?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

SteveI am not quite sure what you read because I don't qualify unreflected wanna-be-communistic juggling with terms like: economy, copyright, patent, etc. without having the slightest idea of what they actually mean as "intellectually challenging" The only things Giggleton manages to challenge are sanity and patience.

So what do you think "communism" mean?

Originally Posted by tompe

So what do you think "communism" mean?

communist [kom-ee-pig] (noun): a person which is disagreeable, especially over political or social issues.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

communist [kom-ee-pig]

LOL! You owe me a new keyboard!

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by tompe

So what do you think "communism" mean?

As intended it can be found practiced in small-scale communities e. g. large families, small tribes or rural communities: all members put in and take out from one big ressource base of goods money and worktime. All adults decide

As perverted trough large re-scaling it: leads to what "Animal Farm" shows in a nutshell. (ruling 'committees' decide what and how much of it is 'best' for the rest and are of course! more equal than the others)

I remember the ration cards ma had to use and how long she stood in queues (meat, milk, sugar, sweets, accohol, tobacco, flour, + pretty everything) unavailability of practically everything; police state;... I might have been a kiddo while I lived in Poland in these times. But I was neither blind nor deaf.

Since gigs clearly advocates the 2nd flavour of communism (I still see his book commisioners saluting) And IS of course more equal than the others (how's the amazon account doing, eh?) take your pigck on what my opinion about him might be. The argument that he wants to screw "only" the producers of art doesn't matter. It is the tune that alerts me not the instrument he chooses to play it on.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

As intended it can be found practiced in small-scale communities e. g. large families, small tribes or rural communities: all members put in and take out from one big ressource base of goods money and worktime. All adults decide

As perverted trough large re-scaling it: leads to what "Animal Farm" shows in a nutshell. (ruling 'committees' decide what and how much of it is 'best' for the rest and are of course! more equal than the others)

I remember the ration cards ma had to use and how long she stood in queues (meat, milk, sugar, sweets, accohol, tobacco, flour, + pretty everything) unavailability of practically everything; police state;... I might have been a kiddo while I lived in Poland in these times. But I was neither blind nor deaf.

Since gigs clearly advocates the 2nd flavour of communism (I still see his book commisioners saluting) And IS of course more equal than the others (how's the amazon account doing, eh?) take your pigck on what my opinion about him might be. The argument that he wants to screw "only" the producers of art doesn't matter. It is the tune that alerts me not the instrument he chooses to play it on.

I think you might be taking the short view.

If anything the network has allowed a near infinite number of artists to distribute their works to a near infinite audience. Why should we then hinder this distribution?? You cannot put forth the fallistic notion of non-creation incentives.

[Freeshadow]

No one hinders nobody. What you want is to force the distribution to being not paid for.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If anything the network has allowed a near infinite number of artists to distribute their works to a near infinite audience. Why should we then hinder this distribution??

No one has even remotely suggested hindering artists ability to distrubute their works. What people are talking about is hindering you giving away these artists works for free.

You giving away copies of the artist's is what hinders the artist's distribution. You've substituted your distribution for the artist's.

And no, the potential audience is not near infinite. The potential audience is about 7 billion people, if all people wanted a copy. That's not near infinity.

You cannot put forth the fallistic notion of non-creation incentives.

You haven't in any way demonstrated that this is a fallacy. On the contrary, ample evidence has been provided that it isn't fallacious

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No one has even remotely suggested hindering artists ability to distrubute their works. What people are talking about is hindering you giving away these artists works for free.

You giving away copies of the artist's is what hinders the artist's distribution. You've substituted your distribution for the artist's.

And no, the potential audience is not near infinite. The potential audience is about 7 billion people, if all people wanted a copy. That's not near infinity.

You haven't in any way demonstrated that this is a fallacy. On the contrary, ample evidence has been provided that it isn't fallacious

So we must now ask ourselves, what is distribution? I submit that only the act of first upload can be called thus. Everything else is merely access.

The network was never meant to be locked.

It's been awhile since I studied infinity but I'm pretty sure that any number is close enough.

But seriously, I think the number of artists who would choose to not create if the network did not provide a mechanism for ensuring compensation pre-access is "infinitely" small compared to the number of artists who would create and then upload with only a vague promise of compensation post-access.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So we must now ask ourselves, what is distribution? I submit that only the act of first upload can be called thus. Everything else is merely access.

That reminds me of an old joke: How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Terms like distribution are well-defined. You can make up your own, but it doesn't change anything.

The network was never meant to be locked.

The network was never meant for you to distribute other people's work without their permission.

It's been awhile since I studied infinity but I'm pretty sure that any number is close enough.

But seriously, I think the number of artists who would choose to not create if the network did not provide a mechanism for ensuring compensation pre-access is "infinitely" small compared to the number of artists who would create and then upload with only a vague promise of compensation post-access.

Ignore the evidence all you want. Your alternatives are the stuff of nightmares.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The network was never meant to be locked.

What network are you talking about?

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That reminds me of an old joke: How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Terms like distribution are well-defined. You can make up your own, but it doesn't change anything.

It's actually a legal principle: "falsa demonstratio non nocet"

Originally Posted by nogle

What network are you talking about?

I hope the neuronal network of his brains (if any is present) I 'd willingly help cracking the housing were I within physical range to do so.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Ignore the evidence all you want. Your alternatives are the stuff of nightmares.

What evidence are you talking about? It seems like everyone is writing a book and uploading it these days, even with vague notions of copyright still lingering around the network.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

I hope the neuronal network of his brains (if any is present) I 'd willingly help cracking the housing were I within physical range to do so.

I hardly think the implication of cracking skulls is within the realm of polite discourse.

Perhaps I have a soft spot for his idealism even though I rarely agree with him on anything.

Besides, his stubborn consistency from day one should demonstrate that his skull must be made of some of the strongest material on earth. I see something of myself in that.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I hardly think the implication of cracking skulls is within the realm of polite discourse.

Perhaps I have a soft spot for his idealism even though I rarely agree with him on anything.

Besides, his stubborn consistency from day one should demonstrate that his skull must be made of some of the strongest material on earth. I see something of myself in that.

Would you describe yourself as 'hardheaded' ar 'headstrong'?!

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

Would you describe yourself as 'hardheaded' ar 'headstrong'?!

Depends on whether or not I'm being completely honest.