Don't mind me guys, just "pirating" this car here.
is he making an exact replica of the car?
No? He's just stealing it? Oh boy, good job with the logical fallacy there champ, physically stealing something is exactly the same as making a copy of some 1s and 0s on a hard drive!
>>52100143
Go ahead. Be sure to let other people pirate your car too.
>>52100161
You're stealing my potential for revenue though
If we could do to physical matter what we do to data when we make a copy (legal or not), we would have ended this bullshit scarcity economics stuff right here, right now.
>>52100161
Nice reductionist fallacy.
>>52100175
It's not a thing that belongs to you.
>>52100187
No, you need to look up false equivalence.
>>52100190
The law disagree with you, Mr. Schlomo Bergstein
You can't just ruins someone's hard earned livelihood just because they're not jewish like you.
>>52100175
And I'll be sure to allow people to steal my potential for revenue too.
>>52100208
We already know law supports this retarded policy of illegal numbers.
>>52100175
You can "potentially" put me in prison then
But not actually
>>52100226
>acting on certain urges of sexuality is illegal
>>52100232
Actually I can
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
>>52100235
>piracy is rape
>>52100235
Hope you're not implying they are even remotely close. "acting on certain urges of sexuality" directly involves another person.
>>52100190
>my intellectual property
>doesn't belong to me
Nice meme
>>52100253
>hurr durr combinations of 1s and 0s can't be illegal
>>52100258
So does stealing my intellectual property, you fucking greedy kike
>>52100262
Potential for revenue is not intellectual property.
But, disregarding that, yes, I am against the whole concept of intellectual property.
>>52100272
Stealing means something else entirely.
>>52100143
Poorshits BTFO.
>>52100276
>Potential for revenue is not intellectual property.
We're talking about stealing intellectual property here, and the intellectual property *is* my potential for revenue which you greedy kikes are destroying in your jewish agenda.
>But, disregarding that, yes, I am against the whole concept of intellectual property.
What fucking communist shit are you that wants to kill all motivation for innovation?
>>52100301
>free stuff is for poorfags only
Air is free. I think it would be best for everyone if you stopped using it.
>>52100279
That's a hook, there's no bait on it.
>>52100143
>mfw i go outside and see a nigga cloning my car
>>52100143
Is it just me or is that window rolled down?
>>52100316
>pirating is for poorfags only
Yes
>>52100316
I think it would be best for the entire world if four hundred gorillean poo in loos stopped using it. A lot of problems today with global warming, overpopulation, wars etc would vanish if they did.
>>52100333
>free stuff
>piracy
Difference?
>>52100262
>my intellectual property
>belongs to me even 75 years after I die
>>52100143
OP is a nigger wearing white makeup to provoke white genocide
You made a recipe for a very delicious lemonade.
You sell a lot of lemonade.
Someone reads your recipe without your permission, a.k.a. steals it.
Your sales go down by a half.
You ask him to give him credit for the recipe.
He refuses on the basis that he didn't "physically" steal your recipe, because all he did was capture photons and energy with his eyes.
You are fucked because libtard logic.
>>52100353
This.
Copyright laws are fucking retarded. Though I believe that they need to exist, right now they're blown way out of proportion. Maybe 20 or so years after creation is fine, but fucking life+75y is stupid af.
>>52100143
This is b8, but I'll bite
>>52100353
Laws are different in different countries. In my country, copyrights and patents are valid in 50 years 25 years after their inception respectively.
>>52100181
>If we could do to physical matter what we do to data when we make a copy (legal or not), we would have ended this bullshit scarcity economics stuff right here, right now.
Yes, restrictions on the free copying and further development of physical things is what mainly stands in the way of a fourth industrial revolution and decentralised production.
Established physical object producers are realising this can end their profit streams and are thus rushing to patent whatever they can and to lobby against the free copying and tinkering of things.
>>52100306
No, you sold data which means that piece of data on their machine belongs to them, and they can share it however they wish. Which includes copying it or allowing others to copy it. If you don't want that happening, don't sell things in a medium where that is easy and possible.
>>52100369
They're supposed to protect consumers from fake shit, not to protect companies from people sharing with their neighbors (or with the internet, but that's the same thing in a greater scale).
In America, companies have more rights than people. And anyone who thinks they're safe because they're not in America should learn some world history.
>>52100391
>No, you sold data which means that piece of data on their machine belongs to them
No, they agreed to a contract that means that they are allowed to *use* it in a certain way.
>and they can share it however they wish
Nope, see above
>If you don't want that happening, don't sell things in a medium where that is easy and possible.
What kind of retard logic is this? Do you believe that if you live on ground level you deserve to get break-ins because "it's so easy and possible"? Or if you are weak because you are some beta /g/eek, you deserved to get robbed by a pack of niggers because it's so "easy and possible"?
I still purchase shit, and I still pirate shit.
It really depends how I perceive the products value.
And I honestly pirate less and less these days (software wise, not media)
there are plenty of free alternatives that are good enough for my needs.
Media just needs a fucking overhaul, like steam or spotify for movies.
>3.99 to 4.99 for a rental
>14.99 to 24.99 to buy
wow, fucking nothing.. costs as much as a physical copy without any of that bonus feature stuff..
how about this
>lower prices by 66%
>SD gets an even lower price
>You can pay extra to upgrade your copy eg HD cost - SD cost = your cost to upgrade from SD to HD
>if when 4K editions come out, you can just pay a small free to upgrade to that instead of paying full cost all over again
>you can buy bonus features for a small price, such as extra scenes or commentary track
>they should NOT be doled out as DLC, instead all bundled together for one low price
>>52100413
>Do you believe that if you live on ground level you deserve to get break-ins because "it's so easy and possible"? Or if you are weak because you are some beta /g/eek, you deserved to get robbed by a pack of niggers because it's so "easy and possible"?
Absolutely 100%
The weak should fear the strong
>>52100175
>You're stealing my potential for revenue though
Okay, I'll upload even harder now.
>>52100448
Drop the deserving part and you have an accurate image of reality.
Now, if the nigger could just clone a TV instead of breaking into your house to get one...
>>52100482
Jew
>>52100407
>In America, companies have more rights than people
Because people make their living in these companies, and thus hurting a company hurt all their employees as well.
>>52100413
Your contract means dick. You sold something, someone bought it and there's nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want be it cracking (if necessary), modifying it or copying it. They effectively own that piece of software. And yes the medium does matter. Your law or contract is not compatible with this medium. You are pretty much de facto selling individual pieces of software that people now own. Tough shit.
And no, stop with the false equivalence. No one is going to take it seriously. Admit that it's inconvenient for you, and that you just want to control the medium so that you get compensated. There's no shame in that but then it comes down to ideological differences. Come from that angle and then we'll stop laughing at the robbery and burglarly comparisons.
>>52100485
You know, you could just not have hordes of desperate, violent nignogs... It works pretty great in other parts of the world. I live in a city centre in the largest city in our country. I have no alarm and I live on ground level, it requires no effort at all to smash the window and climb in and steal my shit, yet I've lived here for 2 years now and it never happened.
And inb4 white neighbourhood, I actually live in what's considered the "bad" part of town because there's brown skinned people and junkies living around here.
Actually having social security + fair justice system = low crime rates
Piracy is unauthorised use and distribution of an original product. As far as intellectual property rights go it is a legal violation. I'm sure there are some RMS-fags that will defame intellectual property but tell me this. If you make something cool like a game or a piece of software, I'm sure you would like to be paid and accredited for it.
Ultimately you're handing around counterfeit copies of an original property under unauthorised use. There is no sure-fire way of stopping this without restricting the end user which, as a developer myself, I would not like to do. Ultimately it's up to the discretion of the end user and we have to hope you buy it.
It's a vicious circle.
>>52100533
>Your contract means dick
Then don't agree to it and don't use my stuff. Your loss, not mine.
>You sold something, someone bought it and there's nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want be it cracking (if necessary), modifying it or copying it.
It's a breach of contract/license/copyright.
>They effectively own that piece of software
They don't though, they own the rights granted to them by the license/contract/copyright laws.
>And yes the medium does matter. Your law or contract is not compatible with this medium. You are pretty much de facto selling individual pieces of software that people now own. Tough shit.
Copyrights apply to other forms of intellectual property than software.
>And no, stop with the false equivalence. No one is going to take it seriously
But it is, it is established law in most parts of the civilised world and companies are spending big money on coming down hard on individuals like yourself that believe that they are above the law.
>Admit that it's inconvenient for you, and that you just want to control the medium so that you get compensated.
Of course, that was my argument. Where is the motivation for innovation if I'm not getting rewarded or compensated for it?
>Come from that angle and then we'll stop laughing at the robbery and burglarly comparisons.
I've been saying this all along anon. By pirating, you are effectively killing my potential for revenue. This was my first post in this thread.
>>52100572
This
DRM mechanisms hurt the end-user but greedy kikes forces us to do so.
>>52100407
>They're supposed to protect consumers from fake shit, not to protect companies from people sharing with their neighbors (or with the internet, but that's the same thing in a greater scale).
Part of the reason behind the creation of what's usually recognized as the first copyright law was, perhaps counter-intuitively, creating the public domain. Before there were codified terms of copyright, whoever owned a given work (mostly books back then) had exclusively rights to reproduce and sell it indefinitely, which was seen as bad for knowledge in general. It's a shame how we've basically come back around to that point again.
>>52100143
PROPERTY IS THEFT
>>52100585
>you will never live in a communist utopia
>It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
>>52100407
>They're supposed to protect consumers from fake shit
Aren't you thinking of trademarks, not copyright? And I doubt that was the main reason behind trademark laws, even initially.
>>52100705
>The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
Fucking autism
>hurr durr I'm confused by different laws therefore they doesn't exist
>>52100741
>rejecting a term == rejecting the law
k
>>52100573
But they do own it. That's what you're not getting. Sure you own MeMe but that particular piece of 130 mb of MeMe on someone's machine? It's theirs. Especially since you gave it away under an impotent agreement. Like if I gave away a hen for two pebbles. Is it fair? Maybe not, the pebbles aren't even *legal* tender, but it's the deal you accepted. When it comes to that the most basics of ownership and buying or selling are in play.
It seriously isn't effective in personal computing. That's just the truth. The day they truly crack down on it effectivelty is when we get into other 1984 tier stuff. That's what it would take to make computers and the internet compatible with other media copyrights. And is that worth it? Probably not.
>>52100741
Congratulations, you have the reading comprehension of a seven year old.
>>52100741
you're not very good at reading are you?
>>52100759
Are you implying that Stallman isn't rejecting intellectual property laws all together? He is one of the biggest advocates against them for fuck's sake, even though his main argument seems to be "they are complicated and confusing"
>>52100792
i'm not a stallman expert, i don't know. but the quoted text doesn't reject the laws at all. it only rejects the term.
>>52100365
What makes you think you are the only special snowflake priviledged to have delicious lemonade?
What If I, by pure luck come up with the exact same recipe?
According to the patent law it's not mine but yours because it's the same as yours, despite the fact I had no idea about the fact that you even exist, not to mention your lemonade.
>>52100825
>>52100790
>>52100783
Maybe you guys should read the entire link first?
>>52100825
He's saying that there is no such word and thus implies that the whole concept is a non sequitur, but he fails to acknowledge that the laws he is referring to clearly define the word "intellectual property".
>>52100829
Patents are not the same as copyright, jew harder.
>Its ok if I takr this turkey, I wasn't going to pay for it anyway
>>52100829
>What makes you think you are the only special snowflake privileged to have delicious lemonade?
Because I spent the time required to perfect the recipe while you assholes did nothing. That time of my life is gone. What makes you a special snowflake privileged to use stuff other people made?
Not doing anything while expecting something in return is basically against the laws of nature. Nothing follows such a retarded logic.
If you don't do anything just stand in one place you eventually drop dead. Maybe you shouldn't try to go against reality. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean people who can should do anything for you. At worst you should perish.
>What If I, by pure luck come up with the exact same recipe?
If you can prove it, which you should be able without hassle considering that you have the methodology and you can describe it, you should be granted the same patent with equal rights.
>>52100872
>I'm just TASTING the turkey, if I like it I'll go back and pay for it.
>>52100910
>Because I spent the time required to perfect the recipe while you assholes did nothing. That time of my life is gone.
So according to you I should pay for your inefficiency at doing stuff?
What If you came up with the perfect recipe at the 2nd attempt? You didn't even waste 15 minutes of your precious life. Are you entitled to ownership for the rest of it as well?
To make money out of your recipe I still have to invest my time and resources to sell your lemonade. Possibly even my entire life to sell your lemonade. Would it make me entitled to it then?
>numbers are property because 'muh hypothetical profits'
Next the corporate kikes will be trying to make it illegal to speak negatively of a business on the same basis.
>go to 'the goldsteinbersteinowitz free margret café'
>order a coffee and a burger
>coffee is filled with chemical waste as a filler
>burger is filled with wood chips
>see someone going in as i'm leaving
>"don't eat here, they serve stuff that is barely edible"
>he looks disgusted and walks away
>the owner overhears me
>rings the police
>i get arrested
>"why am i being arrested for this?"
>"because you are costing me theoretical profits"
>"but the food is inedible"
>"only because people like you badmouth my food, i had to cut costs to stay in business"
>>52100143
Stealing = you took your friends entire collection of songs by stealing his ipod
Sharing = you asked your friend to burn you a dvd full of songs from his ipod
>>52100143
The window is open, you don't have to break in you retard.
>>52100316
>Air is free
please don't give them any ideas
>>52100998
I'm not sure you even understand what I'm saying there. You nicely picked one line from a massive paragraph.
>So according to you I should pay for your inefficiency at doing stuff?
What inefficiency? It could be less than 0.1 seconds, the argument is the same. I spent time and put work into inventing it. I want to have compensation for it. Just as you want to have compensation for selling it. That's why you said "sell" and not giving it away for free. Do you make money other than for covering the costs of the operation?
>Are you entitled to ownership for the rest of it as well?
What do you mean for the rest? Of course I'm entitled to do what the fuck I want with my recipe, because you didn't create it you have no right to have a say in what I should do with my recipe. If you invent a recipe you can also decide for yourself what you want to do with it. If you happen to invent the same recipe as I said before you should have the rights to it even if it's the same. You can decide what you want to do with it: sell it, give it away for free, make contracts for people to use it with limitations, etc.
>>52101041
Stealing = you took your friends entire collection of songs by stealing his ipod
Sharing = you asked your friend to burn you a dvd full of songs from his ipod
adding to that:
Piracy = you took the songs that your friend shared and put them up as torrent through private/public trackers and millions of people acquired them causing massive losses to the artist and the company
sharing between a couple of people is understandable, even Microsoft allows you to install Office 365 on 5 PC's and Windows on 2 home computers under one license key.
Piracy is mass distribution of such content.
why do think you deserve free stuff?
you small shit
>>52101085
>Of course I'm entitled to do what the fuck I want with my recipe, because you didn't create it you have no right to have a say in what I should do with my recipe.
You can stuff your fucking recipe right up your arse for what I care. I just want to put it to good use.
The great-great ancestor of the inventor of a shovel doesn't run around yelling "I have rights to the shovel, you shall pay me fees for every shovel ever made"
Patents slow down technological progress of humanity.
>>52101086
>massive losses
Kek, prove it.
>>52101161
>great-great ancestor
great-great descendant i meant
>>52101099
>he believes in "deserving"
>>52100855
>Maybe you guys should read the entire link first?
Allow me to quote the last paragraph:
>If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.
You obviously haven't read the article yourself if you think
>hurr durr I'm confused by different laws therefore they doesn't exist
is what it says.
>see a retarded post
>feel uncontrollable urge to respond it
Sometimes I don't get you people.
Tech industry is full of Jews.
You can buy a car and resell it on your own and Ford don't give a shit.
You buy a piece of software and don't use it anymore and want to sell it but you can't because the serial number is tied to your Mac Address. Fuck you Native Instruments.
>>52100208
>in favor of copyright laws
>calls somebody else a Jew
Oy vey!
>>52100208
>irony: the post
>>52100208
>patent kike calling anyone a jew
Holy fuck this is something I haven't heard of.
Intellectual property should be protected for 7 years. No exceptions. That's plenty of time to milk a profit.
>>52101329
>You buy a piece of software and don't use it anymore and want to sell it but you can't because the serial number is tied to your Mac Address.
>Mac Address
>Mac
>using Apple products
Found you're problem.
>>52100143
What a stupid moron, the window is open but he tries to break the lock.
>>52101161
Without patents at all what would stop a company to make those products without ever giving anything to the inventor? The inventor couldn't use the money to improve his design and the company wouldn't do it because they only care for the sales. Shit, the guy maybe wouldn't even make enough money to feed himself/herself. He/She would be stripped of their vision easily. Your problem seems to be how people don't care for things and shit on them considering they could place their shit into public domain.
>The great-great descendant of...
Indeed. My argument was pointed towards the core concept of patents, not a precise implementation. I'm actually against ridiculous implementation of patient systems and ridiculous requirements. The law is shit, but the concept is not.
I wouldn't trade for example a beautiful piece of art for extremely increased tech progress. Also, not everyone thinks the same way, you're selecting the views of a group you think are right and want to force them on everyone. There were many systems like this in history and all failed.
People who thought differently and didn't like it went away or didn't really put much onto the table. This is the same with everyone else. The current system works (at least in concept, reality is much worse) because it allows you to do what you want with some basics constraints like not killing people because you want to. Many people are not afraid to lose some personal profit if that means it does some good. The purpose of the concept of patents should be to allow you to do what you want whether you want to make only profit or better the human race. After that it all depends on the people.
Forcing them into your system would only make war. On the other hand if everyone would think like you do they would work to help progress and the system would practically simplify itself to your version more or less. Whose to say what is important? Art, tech, money, living in harmony with nature?
>>52101712
high quality shitposting
>>52101712
Are you for real ?
>>52101712
lmao
>>52100322
Gottem!
>>52100389
Oh god, finally Someone that reached this conclusion. Thanks god
>>52100143
Oh you wanna make an exact copy of my car without even wasting a second of my time? why not.
>>52101444
Patents are not copyrights
>>52101408
>>52101359
Yes, ruining the white man's ability to become self-sufficient economy-wise is part of the jewish agenda
Do you not know that communism was invented by a jew?
>>52100175
When we have magical supertechnology that allows perfect replication of arbitrarily complex objects, your potential revenue as a car manufacturer will be zero.
>>52102777
>When we have magical supertechnology that allows perfect replication of arbitrarily complex objects, your potential revenue as a car manufacturer will be zero.
You've watched too much star trek. Even if this technology is invented, there will still be a need for energy and materials to create this.
>>52102771
>Yes, ruining the white man's ability to become self-sufficient economy-wise is part of the jewish agenda
>>52102809
>protecting one's work is jewry
>ruining it by acting like a bloodsucking parasite is not
Nice try, Schlomo Bergstein
>>52102806
And if such power sources and resources exist that a guy walking around the street can copy whatever he pleases, the car manufacturer is still obsolete save for their potential to produce hot new designs.
>>52100190
The HDD belongs to me. I can put 1s and 0s on it in whatever order I want.
Any resemblence to an official product is pure coincidence.
>>52102831
And these hot designs could be copyrighted, much like product designs are today.
>>52102771
You do realize Jewywood is the big force pushing for more aggressive copyright laws, right?
this >>52102837
>>52102856
I don't care about movies though... I pay a minuscule amount of money for streaming it when I want in what quality I want on whatever device I want...
I only care for software, and you do realise that a communist jew is pushing for ruining software development as viable business, right?
>Argue day and night about value of components that crunch 1's and 0's at high speed
>Claim that 1's and 0's hold no monetary value and therefore can't be illegal copied or stolen
Shiggy
>>52102897
This
/g/ is filled with hypocrites
>>52100143
Please figure out a way to do this. A Tesla is what, 80 grand? Let's find a way to reduce those costs, if you do you'll easily become rich.
>>52100175
>"stealing my potential for revenue"
>fuck doing actual work, just because I made money off of something once means I should be able to make money off of it forever!
I am kind of disturbed how this kind of entitled thinking has become commonplace in certain corporate environments.
>>52102921
Right, because people can consistently keep inventing new things with the hope that people won't just pirate them anyway? Cause that sounds like a logical way of making money.
>>52102921
>fuck doing actual work, just because I made money off of something once means I should be able to make money off of it forever!
What the fuck are you on about?
I made this by myself, I was motivated to be innovative by the money I could make. Why is this inherently bad? Why is motivating people to innovation bad anon? Why do you want to kill progress?
>hurr durr people should do stuff for free
Fuck of manchild. Just because your mommy pays for everything, doesn't mean that this is how the real world works.
>Please figure out a way to do this. A Tesla is what, 80 grand? Let's find a way to reduce those costs, if you do you'll easily become rich.
The Teslas are already open design you fucking imbecile. Only individual parts are patented (by third party vendors).
>>52102921
I invent a new product, I sell it for a price to cover the cost of me producing it and improving it for later versions
You find a cheap way of copying it, effectively putting me out of business
I stop improving it because I need to make a living
Everyone loses except greedy jews who get free stuff but don't care about it going out of production and newer versions will never come
>>52100572
I don't understand how people think piracy is sustainable. If everyone pirates, developers receive no compensation and so stop developing.
It's mostly poor people wanting free stuff, as it's always been.
>>52102816
>giving big companies the ability to sue anyone they want over very vague patents, for example rounded corners, is ok
>barring any use of your work for decades just because you want to milk more money out of it (a.k.a. being a greedy jew) is not jewery
ok kid
>>52100143
you may copy my car as many times as you want brah
>>52102999
Again, stop confusing patents for copyright. They are not the same thing you fucking moron.
>>52102999
>barring any use of your work for decades just because you want to milk more money out of it (a.k.a. being a greedy jew) is not jewery
1) Why should I allow other people to make a profit of my work, potentially driving me out of business because they have more resources to do marketing and cheaper productions?
2) Why am I not allowed to make ethical decisions for my own creation? I don't want my brilliant algorithm to be used in missile guidance systems in missiles that kill people
>>52103002
mines in 320 mp3, feel free to use if youre limited in garage space
>>52100143
This inaccurate.
You should tell it like this:
>Some guy invents the wheel.
>Everybody is forbidden to make wheels unless he pays a lot of money to the "inventor".
Or wait, you are referring to music and movies?
Music, where 99% of all music is never played, while 1% is pushed to the max by the media stations which are obedient servants to the few big major labels?
Or movies, where movies get calculated like formulars, where sequels get hyped because even if it's utter shit some idiots will still watch it because "muh advertizing" - while other good movies get no support at all?
And don't even get me started on software..
It's not like pirating those is not bad, it's a bliss. The more those fuckers bleed, the better.
>>52102940
>>52102961
>>52102987
If your primary motivation is money then you should enter the fields of finance, banking, investing, insurance, etc. "Inventing" is not and has never been something that implies financial success. For most people most of the time, the things you invent are going to be shit and no one is going to buy them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it means you need to find another motivator.
>>52102999
>make something
>big jewish company pushes you out of business
>repeat many times
>only jewish supercorporations remain, innovation completely halts and no one dares to try to do a start up because it will ultimately be pushed out of the market by a larger actor
If you think this is an ideal world, you truly are the shekel master
>>52103058
This is b8 by an obvious retard.
>take a photo of the mona lisa
>"i own the photo because i own the mona lisa!"
is this valid?
>>52103058
>If your primary motivation is money then you should enter the fields of finance, banking, investing, insurance, etc.
You're fucked in the head.
My primary motivation is money BECAUSE I NEED TO PAY MY FUCKING BILLS AND I NEED TO EAT you arrogant, basement-dwelling fat welfare queen.
> "Inventing" is not and has never been something that implies financial success.
Of course not, but copyrights and patents ensure that in the one case where I actually do invent something brilliant, I don't get ripped off by someone else.
>For most people most of the time, the things you invent are going to be shit and no one is going to buy them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it means you need to find another motivator.
Yes, but see above.
>That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it means you need to find another motivator.
I have plenty motivators, but money is my primary motivator.
If I was filthy rich and self-sustained in another way, of course it wouldn't be a motivator and I would give a fuck. But since I'm not, it is actually a big deal and I need to make my own company be financially viable.
>>52102940
>>52102961
>>52102987
>>52102994
>>52103036
>>52103110
These.
/thread
PS: Majority of /g/ are a bunch of retards, kids or poorfags. They can't think one step ahead and they think they got the ultimate solution without even thinking it through from different perspectives weighting the consequences.
>>52103140
>Majority of /g/ are a bunch of retards, kids or poorfags. They can't think one step ahead
I'm old and rich enough and it's not about being greedy. It's a philosohpy, that cultural things can't "belong" certain people. Can you own air? Can you own art? Can you own beauty?
Littel do you know, moneyfag.
>>52100143
Theft is taking something and it is no longer in the owner's possession. Piracy is taking something but it is still in the possession of the owner. You still have the rights to the original copy faglord.
>>52103140
>implying 90% of this thread wasn't b8
here's to you, newfag
>>52103186
>Piracy is taking something but it is still in the possession of the owner.
But it's value has been greatly reduced.
>>52103110
I'm sorry to hear about your financial difficulties. My suggestion would be to get yourself out of personal debt before you think about your company. Selfishness and short-term thinking is what kills most businesses.
Copyrights and patents are not going to be what protects you, lawyers are. If you are actually innovating, people always find a way to rip you off, and they will likely do it in a way that is legally unassailable. They don't do it on purpose, they do it because your ideas are actually good. This isn't something you want to discourage, it's the way innovation actually happens. Good ideas build on top of other good ideas.
Also, if you were a banker you would be the one collecting the payments for those bills.
>>52103211
Finders keepers
>>52103225
>I'm sorry to hear about your financial difficulties. My suggestion would be to get yourself out of personal debt before you think about your company.
I don't have a personal debt, but I do need to have an income, don't I? Fuck you, running a company, employing people, buying hardware, buying hosting services etc, it's not exactly free of charge. Everything costs money, anon.
>Selfishness and short-term thinking is what kills most businesses.
So my wish to start a successful company that employs other people and is innovative, is now some "selfish" and "short-term thinking"?
Fuck off kid
>Copyrights and patents are not going to be what protects you
Yes they are
>lawyers are
Lawyers and attorneys practice law. If it isn't law, they can't do shit.
>If you are actually innovating, people always find a way to rip you off, and they will likely do it in a way that is legally unassailable.
Which is why copyright laws should be strengthened.
>This isn't something you want to discourage,
I want to protect myself, to make sure I'm not out of business because some megacorp with the resources for it drives me out of business.
>it's the way innovation actually happens. Good ideas build on top of other good ideas.
It is not actually.
They may build on top of good ideas if they partner or collaborate. But by ripping me off, they are slowly draining us and stopping innovation and progress.
>Also, if you were a banker you would be the one collecting the payments for those bills.
Bankers and other paper-pushers offer no intrinsic value, anon. You off all people should know this, but I'm starting to suspect that you are a jew.
>>52103211
If I pirate skyrim, it's value will stay the same. Im thinking you are refering to smaller projects.
>>52103308
>If I pirate skyrim, it's value will stay the same
No, it is reduced. You're failing to understand the importance of scale. 90% of people pay for skyrim. However, if 90% of people copied skyrim (illegally), Bethesda would go out of business and you would stop getting new games from them.
>>52103329
I see your point however, I support only buyinf from developers who are having it hard. If Bethesda was going out of buisness, I would buy to support them. If the company has plenty of cash, why should I buy from them? They already made more in a month than I would in a lifetime.
>>52103400
>They already made more in a month than I would in a lifetime.
It's almost like they're a company and you're a person
>>52100143
Go ahead and steal my car, i'll just claim for a new one on the insurance.
>>52103436
>I don't own a car: the post
>>52100143
Whatever you do, you do it for money and you whine about it, probably shit tier shit.
Are you dumb? Either you do a normie tier shit and grab the money, or you do a god tier shit and put it for free, and you grab the money.
>>52103298
You become financially successful by making more money than you're spending. You should figure out how to do that first before you go on a shopping spree.
There are a myriad ways to protect yourself that don't involve paying for lawyers and patent applications. If a megacorp wants to put you out business, they will probably do it using copyrights and patents. Think about that before you become what you hate.
>But by ripping me off, they are slowly draining us and stopping innovation and progress.
This is primarily what I mean by selfishness. You are not the only one who can innovate and drive progress. You need to get over this, especially if you want to hire employees. You will also need to accept the risk that your employees might take your ideas and try and claim credit for them. Nothing is wrong with this, it means you have good ideas!
>>52103329
I don't see a problem there. Companies go out of business every day.
>>52103177
>cultural things
Invention is not a cultural thing. It's a thing made by a person or a group of people.
>poorfags
They are in that sentence because their condition can change their views in a way that they only see what's beneficial to them ignoring the rest of the human race and they think that "everything is free" is the ultimate solution. This is the same for the super wealthy people too usually. They instead have super elitist views.
I don't even have a problem with shit being free or doing shit for free occasionally and for people who actually need it, but that being the general way of things is absurd. I don't have a problem with piracy either if it's not rampant partially due to this.
>Can you own air? Can you own art? Can you own beauty?
No and I don't want to. I can agree with that.
>>52103308
No it's per-unit value will decrease. However companies usually don't care for privacy specifically. Instead they sell their shitty games at price they know will result in maximum profit. Aka ppu*(people buying)=max in a given user-base.
>>52103477
>he doesn't have insurance: the post
I fucking loved it when I totaled my car because I hit a deer. Catching rides for a week was worth getting a car 100x better than what I had.
>>52100143
just a reminder that if you are participating in this thread you are either being baited or willfully shitposting for the sake of shitposting
>>52103562
>Implying not every post on 4chan is a shitpost.
>144 posts in a bait thread we have every single day
I fucking hate you people.
>>52103516
>You become financially successful by making more money than you're spending.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK
>You should figure out how to do that first before you go on a shopping spree.
I do, by continue to sell my PCIe NTB adapter card and software suite (which I've patented).
>ere are a myriad ways to protect yourself that don't involve paying for lawyers and patent applications
Yes, copyrights for example.
>If a megacorp wants to put you out business, they will probably do it using copyrights and patents. Think about that before you become what you hate.
I use my own design, so it's not possible.
> You are not the only one who can innovate and drive progress.
I know, which is why I have VC funding (they drive progress by funding startups like mine), why I have partners (they drive progress by collaborating with me) etc.
>You need to get over this, especially if you want to hire employees
We already have 14 employees (including me) you smug fuck
>You will also need to accept the risk that your employees might take your ideas and try and claim credit for them.
Which is why we have NDAs and employment contracts.
>I don't see a problem there. Companies go out of business every day.
It is not a good thing and it hinders progress.
Why are you pushing for the collapse of the economy anon, are you a communist? Why do you hate progress driven by capitalism? Why do you hate innovation driven by capitalism?
>>52103542
>A thing made by a group of people is not a cultural thing
what
>>52103579
i am definitely implying that.
>>52103543
>I fucking loved it when I totaled my car because I hit a deer.
So you lied to the insurance company then?
>>52103626
What?
Nearly every car insurance provider covers danage due to animals on their policies.
Not that I should expect you to know that, you seem fairly young.
>>52103622
If I hire two people to design me a screw to hold my dragon dildo in place while I'm shitposting in this shitfest of a thread will it be a cultural thing?
>>52103625
Remember anon everyone can be wrong in their lives.
>>52103653
yes, imageboard culture is actually a thing
>>52103400
>If the company has plenty of cash, why should I buy from them?
Because they would continue to make great games?
>They already made more in a month than I would in a lifetime.
That's not an argument, what will happen is that they see that their games are no longer selling, the owners will cash out and the employees are now without jobs.
I don't understand the convoluted logic behind your reasoning. Why is it somehow unfair that a company makes more money than you when the combined efforts of all the employees is a lot more than your total effort? Why is it inherently bad to make money?
>>52103668
kek
>ITT criminals trying to justify their actions
Copyright infringement is against the law. When you break the law you are a degenerate, no better than a street side crackhead. Stop lying to yourself.
>>52103652
>Nearly every car insurance provider covers danage due to animals on their policies.
Not more than the actual value of the car, they don't.
>>52101073
A canadian company actually sells bottled canadian air in china.
>>52103562
Which are you?
>>52103677
>Why is it inherently bad to make money?
Because people who make money are elitist faggots and real people depend on the community and the goodwill of their peers to solve their problems. They get unlimited support that way.
Don't you know this, anon?
>>52103683
Implying the law is always right. That was a low quality bait.
>>52103681
just because you're embarrassed by it does not mean it's not culture
>>52103683
You heard it hear first folks, crossing the street at a red light is just as bad as raping someone.
>>52103706
Understandable
Those narrow-eyed chinks are literally dying from suffocation in the cities
>>52103695
No but when your car is worth $10000 and you want one that costs $15000, it's much more doable.
Get a job and a car :^)
>>52103677
>Because they would continue to make great games?
Yes, because no company has ever released a shitty sequel. Every company that has made 1 good game magically could do no wrong after that. Why didn't I see this before? Thank you for showing me the light anon.
>>52103720
My mom always shouts at me if she sees my dragon dildo. I can't tell her that there are other people like me on the internet on an anonymous imageboard called 4chan. What do?
>>52103719
>Because people who make money are elitist faggots and real people depend on the community and the goodwill of their peers to solve their problems. They get unlimited support that way.
Found the welfare queen.
>>52103721
Rape is a constructed offense anyway. So what, someone put their pee pee in your pee hole, big deal. Assault and battery, however, is another deal.
>>52103677
>Why is it inherently bad to make money?
Money is ALWAYS other people's money.
It's not inherently bad if you want to have other people's money, but neither is other people trying to keep it.
>>52103543
>>he doesn't have insurance: the post
If I have to believe your stories you must be paying a fuck ton for your insurance. Most insurances don't cover shit like people vandalizing your car while it's parked. I'd know.
>>52103748
Why do you think they make shitty sequels, anon? It's because game companies don't earn enough money from making good games, so they just put some shit together and release it too soon.
Game companies go bankrupt all the time, and it's a shitty industry to be in.
>>52103743
>im pretending to own my own car
Do you know how I know you don't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductible#Automobile_and_property_insurance
>>52103785
They don't cover shit like you crashing into wildlife either, contrary to what anon claims.s
When you download my music, you are not saving a 'copy' per say, but rather a daughter. A daughter to a slave copy that I OWN!!
>>52103743
and then your new insurance cost spikes
also deductible
>>52103761
>>52103748
Everyone who posts in this thread should have an award of excellence in shitposting.
Anyway let's keep up the good work:
>>52103766
>Money is ALWAYS other people's money.
Money is ALWAYS other people's money which they exchanged for a given service/product from you. Now you have money you can exchange for services/products you need. It's like all this shit is evil.... omfg.
>>52103823
Holy fuck.
>>52103822
Insurance usually doesn't cover any one-sided accidents at all.
>>52100143
if somebody made a copy of my car without altering or harming mine, I literally wouldn't give a fuck
>>52103882
What if I made a copy of your 3D printed waifu without asking for permission and then violated (my copy) in the most despicable ways?
>>52100175
nobody is stealing potential revenue because piracy is done by people who can't afford the product anyway.
Literally forcing somebody to pay $1 for something who does not have a dollar will not earn you a dollar.
If a friend buys a book and tells me what the story is about, are you gonna sue my friend for potential loss of revenue??
>>52103920
You fucking degenerate I will fucking kill you!
>>52103608
>it's not possible
As an engineer I'm disturbed to hear you using that language. It sounds like what you actually mean it's "it's unlikely but still very possible and a real fear of mine which is why I keep worrying about patents and copyrights." Don't give into your fear anon.
This is the same reason why NDAs and employment contracts don't eliminate risk, they reduce them. I personally will not sign an NDA with any business because of that. If your company even has "hurr muh ideas bein stolen" on its risk profile then you probably are not in a good position to begin with.
>It is not a good thing and it hinders progress.
Why do you think it's bad when shitty companies go out of business because they are stagnating the economy by wasting everyone's time with patent litigation? Why do YOU hate innovation driven by capitalism?
>>52103719
>>52103721
If you don't like it then work to make change within the bounds of our legal system. Otherwise don't act like such an incredulous moron. Did your mom never teach you basic morals when you were growing up?
Just because you don't like a law doesn't suddenly make it legal.
>>52103920
cool man, I'm glad you lonely people can have some fun
YESSS GOOD GOYIM CALL EACH OTHER JEWS YEEES GOYIM :-)
>>52103920
pics or it didn't happen
>>52103839
> It's like all this shit is evil.... omfg.
Didn't quite get the point..
Basically everybody want to have money, there's no moral highground for anyone.
If a "buys" something, b has his money.
If a "pirates" something, a keeps his money.
b is "protected by laws" which basically means, it socially acceptible. nothing more, nothing less.
>>52103939
If you can't afford it it's your problem, desu senpai
You're not entitled to anything just because you are poor.
>>52103952
>As an engineer I'm disturbed to hear you using that language.
Now you're just arguing semantics, which I take as an admission of defeat from your part.
>I personally will not sign an NDA with any business because of that
Good luck getting ANY engineering job then...
>Why do you think it's bad when shitty companies go out of business because they are stagnating the economy by wasting everyone's time with patent litigation? Why do YOU hate innovation driven by capitalism?
It is good if they go out of business because they have a shit product nobody's buying.
It's not good if they go out of business because someone else is making a cheap knock-off and is able to market that more aggressively.
>>52103955
>within the bounds of our legal system.
I would much prefer revolution style. I will shoot you first, but don't worry we will remember you. In the new system I will be a hero.
>>52104012
Fair enough.
If you support intellectual property then you are a jew and don't support capitalism.
Intellectual property is the government controlling people to inhibit having a free market.
Also "intellectual property" is nothing like property. When you "buy music", you're not really buying it and are instead paying to be allowed to listen to it. If it was like property, then you could do what you want with it and sell it to other people.
People who support intellectual property just don't want to accept the fact that the free market gives their products no value.
It's okay to support intellectual property if you're a leftist who believes people's freedom should be taken away in order to assist people in making money because "think of the children", etc., but you shouldn't feel so entitled.
>>52103939
>>>52100175
>nobody is stealing potential revenue because piracy is done by people who can't afford the product anyway.
So why should they be allowed to use the product? Just because you're not damaging the original copy you don't have a right to use the product. That's just a neckbeard manchild sense of entitlement.
>Literally forcing somebody to pay $1 for something who does not have a dollar will not earn you a dollar.
Except it does. You autist, m8?
>>52104015
>If you can't afford it it's your problem, desu senpai
>
>You're not entitled to anything just because you are poor.
That's not what I am arguing. I agree with you. My problem is, is that this does not correlate to potential revenue loss as mentioned in that post.
Those are two distinctly different things.
>>52104048
No, you are the jew that is pushing for the collapse of innovation and progress.
Read the thread before spouting more of your disgusting kike propaganda
>>52104017
>2Edgy
>>52104069
>So why should they be allowed to use the product? Just because you're not damaging the original copy you don't have a right to use the product. That's just a neckbeard manchild sense of entitlement.
If I can use it, I will. But see >>52104078
>Except it does. You autist, m8?
Not if they're not getting your product in the process, I think I may have not explained that part of my argument properly.
>>52104078
People who can afford it still pirate. It is a fallacy to assume that only poor people pirate stuff.
I only pirate shit-tier games that don't deserve to be supported. ie: Goat Simulator.
>>52104138
So you only pirate games that are (almost) free in the first place?
>>52104115
>People who can afford it still pirate. It is a fallacy to assume that only poor people pirate stuff.
If they weren't going to buy the product in the first place, it's not lost revenue
>>52104015
No anon, risk management is an important part of any business. There is more to it than just saying "we did this one specific thing therefore risk is eliminated!"
If the competition is able to market more aggressively then you failed at marketing. Why do you think bad marketing is not a valid reason for a company to go out of business?
I might be a high guy but what if in the future like 2028
>Pirating hit to be square
>3D printing vinyl
>that'sunusual.png
>3D print a warrant for your arrest
>Next is a police officer
what if that's how they deal with illegal downloads in the future?
>>52100327
hehe this.
>"Now...be sure to look into the camera...a little more to the left...
ITT: Bunch of broke NEETs trying to rationalize their objectively unethical behavior.
>>52104181
>"HOW MANY HEMPS DID YOU INJECT TODAY SIR?"
>>52104173
What if they would buy it if DRM technology prevented them from pirating it?
>>52104176
>No anon, risk management is an important part of any business. There is more to it than just saying "we did this one specific thing therefore risk is eliminated!"
Of course there is a fucking risk, which is why abolishing copyright laws and patent laws and making the risk bigger is a bad idea. You aren't contributing to the discussion anymore, you're basically just shitposting now.
>If the competition is able to market more aggressively then you failed at marketing.
As a small company, we lack the resources of a megacorporation.
>Why do you think bad marketing is not a valid reason for a company to go out of business?
Because marketing has nothing to do with the quality of the product and the level of innovation involved in making the product.
Also, illegal copies are not a reason for a company to go out of business. Here's an example: Last autumn, we almost lost all our chinese clients. After research, it turned out that people who had formerly been working at the factory where we assemble our cards in China had ran off and started a competing company in China that solely made knock-offs of our card. As copyright laws in China were fucked up, there was nothing we could do. Luckily, we regained most of our former chinese clients when they realised that the new company were unable to copy our firmware.
We lost hundreds of thousands in the process of this though, among other things because we had to move assembly to India instead, money which could have been spent on improving the product and getting new clients instead. Would copyright laws have changed anything? Yes, because we would have been able to sue these former workers for our loss of revenue.
>>52104181
so you're saying you could accidentally pirate a police officer? That would have interesting legal implications.
It is likely to be unconstitutional because you would because you could argue that it would be quartering soldiers.
>>52104089
Wrong. You are the commie jew disallowing innovation and progress.
>>52104286
>implying firmware isn't just software
>implying software isn't just 1s and 0s
>implying that your firmware along with every digital media production doesn't exist somewhere in the digits of pi already
Dude sue numbers!
>>52104286
>What if they would buy it if DRM technology prevented them from pirating it?
They wouldn't buy it because they didn't have a dollar. End of story. However, the problem with DRM is that it restricts and abuses the user who did buy it. If you buy a hammer, there is literally nobody and nothing forcing you to use it in one specific way. Everything in life is that way because who the fuck do people think they are to force you to use something they way they want you to use something. It is ultimately not up to them, it is up to the user.
The problem with DRM is not the fact that it restricts piracy, the problem with DRM, is that it forcefully changes the way you use the product and in some cases your PC. This is wrong.
>>52104220
So you are saying that you would rather have people starve to death?
very ethical
>>52104296
yeah same way you get those letters from comcast but its a cop
>>52104220
>>52104359
See >>52104286
>>52104361
Where did I imply any of that?
>>52104363
Your logic is wrong, it's as simple as that. It's a fallacy to assume that people who pirate it wouldn't buy it if circumstances where differently.
>However, the problem with DRM is that it restricts and abuses the user who did buy it.
I agree, I'm not a proponent of DRM which is also why I'm not a proponent of pirating stuff.
See >>52100580
>>52104220
>I would rather have a copy
how did he get a copy without buying original?
>>52104419
>Your logic is wrong, it's as simple as that. It's a fallacy to assume that people who pirate it wouldn't buy it if circumstances where differently.
I am simply saying that people who have not got money to buy the product, will not buy the product. This does not equal lost revenue. I'm not sure where my logic is wrong here?
>I agree, I'm not a proponent of DRM which is also why I'm not a proponent of pirating stuff.
Neither am I, but I also don't believe that using arguments such as lost potential revenue is a relevant one.
>>52104359
Fuck of Schlomo Bergstein.
You have no right undermining companies, crippling innovation, hindering progress and collapsing the economy just because you want stuff for free. Take your kike propaganda elsewhere.
>>52104419
Original thought doesn't exist, making ideas illegal is destructive to human advancement. All ideas are free, you've just been tricked into believing that copyrighted materials are somehow magically different.
>>52103939
>If a friend buys a book and tells me what the story is about, are you gonna sue my friend for potential loss of revenue??
Yes. I've already sent screenshots of your post to legal. We'll subpeona 4chan for your IP, and then your ISP for your address. You can expect to receive a letter in the mail in about 6 - 8 weeks, and I strongly encourage you to settle it for the suggested amount.
>>52104286
>>52104419
Boo-hoo to you. Stop feeling so entitled. Other people have every right to compete with you. That's capitalism.
>>52104462
>I am simply saying that people who have not got money to buy the product, will not buy the product. This does not equal lost revenue.
While this is true, I also clearly stated that you cannot assume that only people who can't afford it or in other ways would not buy your product in any way, are the only ones that pirate it.
I also said potential revenue, not actual revenue. It is a logic tautology to state that people who don't buy one's product don't buy one's product, something I don't find a very compelling argument as to why the "potential lost revenue" argument shouldn't be considerd valid.
>Neither am I, but I also don't believe that using arguments such as lost potential revenue is a relevant one.
Well, I believe it is. For me, it is one of the strongest ethical arguments against pirating, as the person doing it is in fact undermining the business model of the original creator.
So are you faggots implying that you wouldn't see anything wrong in going to a peep show, taking photos, then posting them on your tumblr for free?
>dude it's just a copy
>>52104529
If someone goes to Burger King instead of McDonalds, McDonalds aren't entitled to that "potential revenue" in the same way Microsoft aren't entitled to "potential revenue" if someone gets Windows from someone who offers it for free rather than from Microsoft. They're both offering the same service at a different price. You aren't entitled to say nobody else can compete.
>>52104468
>Original thought doesn't exist,
But they do anon....
>making ideas illegal is destructive to human advancement.
I'm not advocating against that. All I'm saying is don't pass my ideas off as your own.
>All ideas are free,
Make your own ideas.
>>52104481
Competition is okay anon, it drives innovation.
Trying to replicate our own product and steal our clients by direct contact, however, is not. That's the sort of thing that is the reason China isn't world leading in any R&D activities.
>>52104580
>If someone goes to Burger King instead of McDonalds, McDonalds aren't entitled to that "potential revenue" in the same way Microsoft aren't entitled to "potential revenue" if someone gets Windows from someone who offers it for free rather than from Microsoft. They're both offering the same service at a different price. You aren't entitled to say nobody else can compete.
I never said that, anon. That's a strawman argument.
What I said is that you are not entitled to take my intellectual property and use it as you wish, because it's simply isn't yours to take.
See >>52104582
Competition is good. Bootlegging is not.
>>52104286
>As a small company, we lack the resources of a megacorporation.
This is a beginners trap in business. Do not compare yourself to the competition in terms of resources. Your resources are unique and are not comparable. This is what gives you value as a company. This is why that ripoff company could not do any long term harm to you.
Hint: As a small company you have enormous speed and flexibility which megacorps do not have.
I think you made a mistake in transferring manufacturing to India. You probably should have just paid the Chinese factory workers more. When you treat your employees like shit you will generally get the same in return.
>>52104606
This sounds like some SJW speech. The content matches.
>>52104606
>You probably should have just paid the Chinese factory workers more. When you treat your employees like shit you will generally get the same in return.
They are not our employees, anon. They are employees of the factory (which also manufactures other things), we just made a contract with the factory owner. But it turned out, that particular company we contracted had done the same thing to other companies as well, which is why we pulled out. In other words, they made a living out of ripping other companies off.
>>52103721
>crossing the street at a red light is just as bad as raping someone.
It can be worse, actually. Someone might die because you couldn't wait like 30 seconds.
>>52104529
>While this is true, I also clearly stated that you cannot assume that only people who can't afford it or in other ways would not buy your product in any way, are the only ones that pirate it.
I wasn't talking about that. My original argument only spoke against potentially lost revenue and not whether or not poor vs rich people pirate.
>I also said potential revenue, not actual revenue. It is a logic tautology to state that people who don't buy one's product don't buy one's product, something I don't find a very compelling argument as to why the "potential lost revenue" argument shouldn't be considerd valid.
There is only potential revenue lost if a rich person wanted to buy the product but did not and pirated it instead.
While typing out the above (left it there now because it is relevant), I somewhat agree with you. A rich person can in fact pirate a copy and in fact cause potential revenue loss. However, this is not always true and as such can only be applied to some cases and not to others. That is why I think the argument is weak and not relevant.
>Well, I believe it is. For me, it is one of the strongest ethical arguments against pirating, as the person doing it is in fact undermining the business model of the original creator.
I see your point here. I understand the argument that you are undermining the business model of the original creator and in a world where all business models are ethical and just, we would not necessarily be facing the same issues. I also think this is not tightly linked enough to the argument of potential revenue loss.
Also, I am not this stupid fuck here >>52104580
>>52104580
>>52104481
>stealing industry secrets is fair capitalistic competition
>>52104375
Bread is the only food in the world, huh?
>>52104660
>My original argument only spoke against potentially lost revenue and not whether or not poor vs rich people pirate.
Okay, I mistook you for someone else. I'm sorry.
>While typing out the above (left it there now because it is relevant), I somewhat agree with you. A rich person can in fact pirate a copy and in fact cause potential revenue loss. However, this is not always true and as such can only be applied to some cases and not to others. That is why I think the argument is weak and not relevant.
Fair enough, I seem to have ran out of counter-arguments so I will admit that it might be a weak argument.
>I see your point here. I understand the argument that you are undermining the business model of the original creator and in a world where all business models are ethical and just, we would not necessarily be facing the same issues.
Well, that's a good point.
>I also think this is not tightly linked enough to the argument of potential revenue loss.
I do though, but I guess I need to sit down and re-evaluate my position.
>>52104636
I don't know what to tell you. Business is not all about scamming people.
>>52104650
Yeah, you probably went with them because they offered you a really cheap deal. You get what you pay for.
>>52100143
>Don't mind me guys, just "pirating" this car here.
Your analogy doenst work, because someone else using the same plate as yours can lead to problems
>>52104603
>my intellectual property
It's not yours. It's just information. All information always exists. It's not even property. It's just a variety of restrictions the government puts in place which can sometimes resemble property.
You're not entitled to say other people can't use information resembling some other information just because you somehow (mostly) produced it in some way.
>>52104668
That literally isn't stealing. Stealing is when you take something from someone.
>>52104724
>It's not yours. It's just information
They made it, it is theirs.
>>52104405
Can you explain the image?
>>52104715
>Yeah, you probably went with them because they offered you a really cheap deal.
Actually, we went with them because of their references, which turned out to be fraudulent. Another thing that you can't sue people for in China, apparently.
>You get what you pay for.
Ironic statement, considering that we are currently in a thread discussing "piracy" and illegal copying/bootlegging.
>>52104732
If it is "theirs", that implies it is their property. It isn't. Information cannot be property. Even nonsense laws covering "intellectual property" don't make information into property because that doesn't make sense.
>>52104724
>It's not yours. It's just information.
We made it.
>All information always exists
Then why didn't someone else make it?
>It's not even property. It's just a variety of restrictions the government puts in place which can sometimes resemble property.
It is tangible property in terms of blueprints, source code, prototypes, design schemas etc.
>You're not entitled to say other people can't use information resembling some other information just because you somehow (mostly) produced it in some way.
Resembling ours, no. Being almost exactly identical to ours, hell yeah we can.
>Stealing is when you take something from someone.
Yes, as in stealing our industry secret.
>>52104754
>Information cannot be property.
That's a bullshit interpretation of it and you know it. There'd be no end to corporate espionage by your standards.
>>52104737
When X was made available for (illegal) downloading on 4chan, the sales numbers spiked because it got more exposure and people also bought it.
DEAR POOR PEOPLE,
PLEASE STOP BREAKING THE LAW
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS AGAINST THE LAW
WHEN YOU BREAK COPYRIGHT YOU ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO WASTE TIME CREATING UNWIELDY DRM SYSTEMS
WHEN COMPANIES STOP MAKING A PROFIT OFF OF THEIR WORK THEY TURN TO OTHER MEANS: SELLING USER DATA, SUBSCRIPTION MODELS, AND IN APP PURCHASES
YOU'RE FUCKING IT UP FOR THE REST OF US
Sincerely, Contributing members of society
>>52104714
I dunno what to do now. I've never had a proper debate like this online before. Nothing has prepared me for this....
I will say that I think piracy a wrong and should be prevented under all costs. However, attacking protocols like torrents, blocking IP address ranges etc is not the right way to go about it. It's almost like a child throwing a tantrum and doing random and aggressive shit to change the situation.
I don't know what will solve the piracy issue to be honest but I don't think what is happening now is right or the best course of action; attacking the pirate bay founders etc, they did not upload all the movies and music and games to the site, and it will not prevent others from uploading new content either.
>>52100143
Piracy is a corporatist way of saying "STOP COPY AND PASTING MY 1's and 0's"
In reality, no one is harmed, because consuming copied media does not equate to a sale.
It's like me inviting my fiends over to watch a movie DVD I just bought.
>>52104825
fuck off
I think copyright didn't adequately adjust for the internet era and as a result we are having discussions like this.
![Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4_snapshot_21.41_[2015.12.28_13.28.34].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/31LbVLS.jpg "Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4_snapshot_21.41_[2015.12.28_13.28.34].jpg")
>information is free
>not just information in general but any information from anyone regardless of what they want for it
How about this: go to Harvard and just sit there watching all the classes for the next four years or so without getting kicked out.
What's the matter? Wasn't the teacher just going to say the words out loud anyway?
>>52104829
literally a straw man argument
Hey, OP, did you pay for the use of that stock photo?
>>52104827
>I dunno what to do now. I've never had a proper debate like this online before. Nothing has prepared me for this....
Well, I'm glad that it is possible to have these discussions on 4chan every once in a while.
>I will say that I think piracy a wrong and should be prevented under all costs. However, attacking protocols like torrents, blocking IP address ranges etc is not the right way to go about it
I completely agree with you.
>It's almost like a child throwing a tantrum and doing random and aggressive shit to change the situation.
That's a good metaphor.
>I don't know what will solve the piracy issue to be honest but I don't think what is happening now is right or the best course of action; attacking the pirate bay founders etc, they did not upload all the movies and music and games to the site, and it will not prevent others from uploading new content either.
While I'm unsure what to think about the repercussions to pirate bay founders, I do believe that what the film- and music industry is currently doing and coming down hard on private individuals is counter-productive and directly harmful, and I also (as I suspect you do too) think that for example net neutrality is an inherently good property of the Internet and should be protected.
>>52104774
>Yes, as in stealing our industry secret.
No it isn't taking anything. You've lost nothing. You aren't harmed. You are not affected in any way.
>We made it.
So what?
>Then why didn't someone else make it?
Someone else invented the chair. Does that mean I'm not allowed to make one too? Or only after some arbitrary amount of time? Face it. Intellectual property is just another socialist scheme.
>>52104829
pretty much.
using a beamer to display the DVD to a greater audience is often considered piracy.
>>52104886
Copyright infringement is wrong, but your analogy doesn't make sense. You're paying for the University's endoursement of your ability, not the lecture content.
>>52104938
this
>>52104886
you're a fucking dumbass
![Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4_snapshot_16.33_[2015.12.28_13.12.39].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0I27BpX.jpg "Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4_snapshot_16.33_[2015.12.28_13.12.39].jpg")
>>52104938
>You're paying for the University's endoursement of your ability, not the lecture content.
So surely they'll allow you to come in every day to class. You just need to tell them "it's okay, I don't want a diploma".
>>52104872
we never wanted copyright to adjust to the internet era, in fact we never liked being ripped off just previously we couldn't do much about it
