Re: Re: Re: Re: Good to see a little populist outrage /here/.
Actually, a number of insurance companies in the US do the same thing... make sure yours is a 'mutual company'. if they exceed the profit margin, the money goes back to the 'shareholders', which are the policy holders of that company.
"It does kind of make you wonder if the $32,500 was "worth it" to have your reputation dragged through the mud.
When you're a shithead living in a purchased hotel (how many homeless are around?) and can pad your mattress with all the money [cough] 'earned' in this way, I guess you can sleep pretty well at night. What use is your reputation? It just gets in the way.
Besides, he can hold his head up high (or use a 12-year-old Philippino slave to hold it up for him) and say "by gosh, I was right!" I just hope he is enjoying 'being right'... eventually being a soulless, money-grubbing asshat is going to catch up to him. I only wish I could be there to piss in his face when it finally does.
It is nice to see that when we both take down our pre-defenses, we find we're actually on the same side.
I will also apologize for my accusatory tone... one of my pet peeves is the 'my opinion is better than yours' tones... I'm a recovering southern-baptist... heh.
I think you actually do agree with my notion of 'correctness' of opinions. As long as my opinion fits with m morality based on all available information, then I could say it is 'correct', but there is no universally right opinion that is 'better' or 'more right' than another. Which, I think, is what you're saying.
I agree with you that just saying "well, that's your opinion" is a poor argument... that's why I didn't attack your opinion as being "wrong". I see your point and understand (as much as someone not you can) where you're coming from. I just happen to disagree with it, but I don't think I'm any more "right".
Like I said, we do seem to be on the same side (outside of agreeing on the justification) regarding the point of the article. All I wanted was a focus on that point and not so much on whether this guy was right or wrong.
I did not say that all I was doing is attacking the argument... I said that I am. You claimed I wasn't, I pointed out that I am.
And you're right that I'm railing (if you want to use that word for it, fine...) how you express your opinion... if you state your opinion with the understanding that you can be just as wrong as the person you think is wrong and allow for the fact that others can have just as legitimate an opinion as you, fine. That's not what you're doing tho... you're insisting that this guy is wrong in his opinion (which can't be be 'right' or 'wrong')... and that's not fine. One is being a contributing member of a conversation, the other is being an ass.
""Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy."
Ordering a CD IS a legitimate way to buy the album."
Ok, I'll grant that. Maybe Mike should have stated "could not find a legitimate way to buy a digital version of the album, or a fairly priced CD without paying the inflated 'import' cost on a physical item he didn't want in the first place..." Or, maybe Mike meant all that in "legitimate", since I would count all that in my idea of legitimately purchasing those things I want to spend my money on without having to adhere to someone else's artificially-created scarcity and restrictions.
By focusing on the technicality that this guy could have bought a specific (completely unwanted, yet artificially mandated) format of this music and saying that it removes the legitimacy of his rationalization is sailing past the point that this guy did what he did because the label chose not to meet the buyer in a way that the buyer wants.
I am attacking the argument... you say that his piracy is not justified. I say that it was. He says that it was. So why are you right and he and I are wrong? It's a matter of opinion.
The point is (which I did make before, and you supplemented) is that in this case, "available" is a matter of opinion. In his mind, he did everything he could to get the product he wanted in the way he wanted it. So in his opinion, he is justified. Just because you disagree does not make him wrong. And for you to come in here and say that his is wrong is, in itself, wrong.
But if you want to nitpick the technicalities of the framing of the articles, I can go there too. Mike never said that piracy was the only option... this guy never said it was the only option...He said (and Mike agreed) that the option of piracy was more attractive than being forced to buy something he wanted in a way he didn't want (a physical CD).
The whole point of the article that you sailed right past in your attack on the "technically he could have purchased it" front and the "his justification of piracy is wrong" front is this: the record label/distributor/whoever put up hurdles to getting a product in the way a consumer wanted, so he got it through illicit channels. Or, more simply, if you don't give customers what they want, they will get it elsewhere. Period.
And it's amusing to see you fail to understand that you can express your opinion about what justifies piracy without condemning other people. And that you fail to even address that notion even though it's the crux of what I'm on about. Instead, you twist my intention around so you can attack with it. Nice.
It's the difference between saying "you don't have to believe in my god" and saying "you don't have to believe in my god but you're going to hell you heathen". The way you jump on this guy, you fall nicely into the second of those two.
And the "winner" was the award for the further fall off a high-horse that day. I thought you were arguing against piracy completely and then you turned around to say your kind of piracy was ok, but not his. Glad you're sticking to you guns and really earning that award.
Sorry if you feel it was unimaginative, but it was a connection to the other thread you went to spout your overbearing correctness of opinion in. I'll try harder next time.
Fine... that's your opinion. Now get off your high-horse trotting around here claiming that you're right and he's wrong.
Bottom line: this guy's opinion of what level of 'availability' justifies (or at least understandably leads to) piracy differs from yours. Stop going around like you're an authority on all justifications and that this guy is wrong.
You're right... you do have a right to your opinion. Just like I have a right to mine. But I'm not saying that someone's wrong when their opinion doesn't jive with mine.
And before you say it, no I didn't say you're wrong in your justification of piracy... I'm saying you're wrong for saying your opinion is more correct than someone else's and then judging them on it.
And since we're talking opinions and in a court of law... how is a text-book definition of 'available' a valid argument point? Since we're talking the opinion of justified piracy, how can your opinion of what constitutes 'available' be any more valid to someone else than their own opinion?
"while it's readily apparent that he thinks it's "OK." "
And your interpretation of that is more valid than, say, mine... because?
Joe, I can see why you would feel that way given the difference between your views and Mike's... but that interpretation is reading into and between lines that are barely there... You're inferring his motiviations. And attacking him based on that (opinion-based) interpretation. And a lot of us find that childish and petty.
And who, exactly, are you to determine at what point something is "unavailable"? You seem pretty quick to judge this guy who went FAR beyond what most people would have done to try to be legit and pay for the thing in the way he wanted to get it. Me? I wouldn't have tried to spoof the IP address (something I think the DCMA might have a problem with if they felt that I was circumventing the legal CR protections keeping the digital distribution out of the US) and gone straight to download.
So, your whole problem is that this guy didn't want to buy it on a physical format? Well, I guess you're welcome to that opinion, but it strikes me as hypocritical coming from someone who says some forms of piracy are ok, but others aren't.
You’re saying we have to accept only those formats the distributors decide to allow? Sorry, but that’s not how the market works. If you don't sell something in a format your customers want, someone else will... even if they 'sell' it for free.
Again, who are you to judge which forms of piracy are justified and which aren’t?
so... you're ok with piracy, but only if it's your kind of piracy?
It doesn't register that he would have had to pay 3x as much as the listed price? That he would have had to pay a 3rd party just to allow him access to the data?
On the post: Priced Out Of Your Medication? Must Be All That 'Expensive' Big Pharma R&D
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good to see a little populist outrage /here/.
On the post: The Many Killers Of The Music Industry: The Analog Era
Re: "Why would possibly pretend they wouldn't?"
Darryl, you of ALL PEOPLE who frequent this blog, should NEVER... let me say that again:
NEVER
call out anyone else's grammatical errors.
Ever.
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
When you're a shithead living in a purchased hotel (how many homeless are around?) and can pad your mattress with all the money [cough] 'earned' in this way, I guess you can sleep pretty well at night. What use is your reputation? It just gets in the way.
Besides, he can hold his head up high (or use a 12-year-old Philippino slave to hold it up for him) and say "by gosh, I was right!" I just hope he is enjoying 'being right'... eventually being a soulless, money-grubbing asshat is going to catch up to him. I only wish I could be there to piss in his face when it finally does.
On the post: Righthaven CEO: Judges Are Really Just Giving Guidance To Righthaven Competitors
potentially?
So... they're only genuine... maybe? Is that a misquote, or did he really just say that they are only maybe, possibly genunine in upholing copyrights?
Did I just hear the click-clack of someone chambering a Freudian-round?
On the post: TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere
Re: I hope this fails miserably
Gotta tell you, little Johnny next door can hide ANYTHING in those paper-route bags... scares the hell outta me. PROTECT ME TSA!!!
/obvious sarcasm
On the post: Copyright Holders Claim That They Should Get To Decide Any Copyright Exceptions
Re:
On the post: Copyright Holders Claim That They Should Get To Decide Any Copyright Exceptions
Re: Re:
j/k... had to drop that somewhere. I think your points are actually better analogies than the drunk driver one.
On the post: TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere
Re: Odd...
On the post: The Many Killers Of The Music Industry: The Analog Era
Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will also apologize for my accusatory tone... one of my pet peeves is the 'my opinion is better than yours' tones... I'm a recovering southern-baptist... heh.
I think you actually do agree with my notion of 'correctness' of opinions. As long as my opinion fits with m morality based on all available information, then I could say it is 'correct', but there is no universally right opinion that is 'better' or 'more right' than another. Which, I think, is what you're saying.
I agree with you that just saying "well, that's your opinion" is a poor argument... that's why I didn't attack your opinion as being "wrong". I see your point and understand (as much as someone not you can) where you're coming from. I just happen to disagree with it, but I don't think I'm any more "right".
Like I said, we do seem to be on the same side (outside of agreeing on the justification) regarding the point of the article. All I wanted was a focus on that point and not so much on whether this guy was right or wrong.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're right that I'm railing (if you want to use that word for it, fine...) how you express your opinion... if you state your opinion with the understanding that you can be just as wrong as the person you think is wrong and allow for the fact that others can have just as legitimate an opinion as you, fine. That's not what you're doing tho... you're insisting that this guy is wrong in his opinion (which can't be be 'right' or 'wrong')... and that's not fine. One is being a contributing member of a conversation, the other is being an ass.
Ok, I'll grant that. Maybe Mike should have stated "could not find a legitimate way to buy a digital version of the album, or a fairly priced CD without paying the inflated 'import' cost on a physical item he didn't want in the first place..." Or, maybe Mike meant all that in "legitimate", since I would count all that in my idea of legitimately purchasing those things I want to spend my money on without having to adhere to someone else's artificially-created scarcity and restrictions.
By focusing on the technicality that this guy could have bought a specific (completely unwanted, yet artificially mandated) format of this music and saying that it removes the legitimacy of his rationalization is sailing past the point that this guy did what he did because the label chose not to meet the buyer in a way that the buyer wants.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is (which I did make before, and you supplemented) is that in this case, "available" is a matter of opinion. In his mind, he did everything he could to get the product he wanted in the way he wanted it. So in his opinion, he is justified. Just because you disagree does not make him wrong. And for you to come in here and say that his is wrong is, in itself, wrong.
But if you want to nitpick the technicalities of the framing of the articles, I can go there too. Mike never said that piracy was the only option... this guy never said it was the only option...He said (and Mike agreed) that the option of piracy was more attractive than being forced to buy something he wanted in a way he didn't want (a physical CD).
The whole point of the article that you sailed right past in your attack on the "technically he could have purchased it" front and the "his justification of piracy is wrong" front is this: the record label/distributor/whoever put up hurdles to getting a product in the way a consumer wanted, so he got it through illicit channels. Or, more simply, if you don't give customers what they want, they will get it elsewhere. Period.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the difference between saying "you don't have to believe in my god" and saying "you don't have to believe in my god but you're going to hell you heathen". The way you jump on this guy, you fall nicely into the second of those two.
And the "winner" was the award for the further fall off a high-horse that day. I thought you were arguing against piracy completely and then you turned around to say your kind of piracy was ok, but not his. Glad you're sticking to you guns and really earning that award.
Sorry if you feel it was unimaginative, but it was a connection to the other thread you went to spout your overbearing correctness of opinion in. I'll try harder next time.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bottom line: this guy's opinion of what level of 'availability' justifies (or at least understandably leads to) piracy differs from yours. Stop going around like you're an authority on all justifications and that this guy is wrong.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And before you say it, no I didn't say you're wrong in your justification of piracy... I'm saying you're wrong for saying your opinion is more correct than someone else's and then judging them on it.
And since we're talking opinions and in a court of law... how is a text-book definition of 'available' a valid argument point? Since we're talking the opinion of justified piracy, how can your opinion of what constitutes 'available' be any more valid to someone else than their own opinion?
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re:
Joe, I can see why you would feel that way given the difference between your views and Mike's... but that interpretation is reading into and between lines that are barely there... You're inferring his motiviations. And attacking him based on that (opinion-based) interpretation. And a lot of us find that childish and petty.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who, exactly, are you to determine at what point something is "unavailable"? You seem pretty quick to judge this guy who went FAR beyond what most people would have done to try to be legit and pay for the thing in the way he wanted to get it. Me? I wouldn't have tried to spoof the IP address (something I think the DCMA might have a problem with if they felt that I was circumventing the legal CR protections keeping the digital distribution out of the US) and gone straight to download.
So, your whole problem is that this guy didn't want to buy it on a physical format? Well, I guess you're welcome to that opinion, but it strikes me as hypocritical coming from someone who says some forms of piracy are ok, but others aren't.
You’re saying we have to accept only those formats the distributors decide to allow? Sorry, but that’s not how the market works. If you don't sell something in a format your customers want, someone else will... even if they 'sell' it for free.
Again, who are you to judge which forms of piracy are justified and which aren’t?
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't register that he would have had to pay 3x as much as the listed price? That he would have had to pay a 3rd party just to allow him access to the data?
Woooow. I think we have a winner.
Next >>