Don't mind me guys, just pirating this car here.
- Home
- Board: /g/ - Technology
- Reading: Don't mind me guys, just pirating this car here.
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!
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.
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
>>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]")
>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]")
>>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
>>52104949
Yes it is, try it sometime.
>>52104924
>No it isn't taking anything. You've lost nothing. You aren't harmed. You are not affected in any way.
Uh, yes we were. We lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it and could potentially have gone bankrupt if they managed to copy our firmware as well.
>So what?
Well, it makes us allowed to do whatever we want with 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.
A chair is too broad, anon, and not even a remotely good analogy
>>52104886
what about universities like MIT providing free lecture videos online? are they bankrupting themselves?
>>52104886
If information is free, why did Google get rich selling it?
>>52104924
>wants to force people to give away something they don't want to give away
>calling others socialist
Oh the irony
>>52104949
Never heard of iTunes U? Most of the ivy league schools post their lectures online for the public already.
Do you think lectures are top secret or something? Most lectures are on topics that were discovered centuries ago.
![Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4_snapshot_19.15_[2015.12.28_13.17.38].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9cWrb96.jpg "Married With Children - 0509 - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.mp4 snapshot 19.15 [2015.12.28 13.17.38]")
>>52104977
There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of free courses. It's their call to share their own content, and whether it's good or bad for them, that's up to them to decide. But it's still their call, you know?
>>52104985
Bingo.
>>52104962
You first, I have a good pet theory of what would happen.
>>52104954
how did copyright rip you off before the internet?
>>52104930
Unless a studio exec or copyright lawyer is on the premises, no one is gonna give a fuck desu.
I go to many chinese barbershops showing movies, sometimes even pirated HDrips that I know are pirated. No one cares! Its like a concert / movies thing. I go watch a movie I really want to, to support the creators, the venues hosting the movies, the workers etc. Same with concerts.
>>52104913
>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.
That is good to hear.
As long as there are people there will be wars and this applies to piracy as well unfortunately. It's now the ongoing game.
>>52104886
Most decent universities allow anyone to sit in lectures, provided its not a small session in the upper years.
You're retarded.
>>52105019
read >>52105036
The problem isn't sharing the topics, but the content produced by this or that person without authorization. Information might be essentially free, but that doesn't mean you should get to share someone else's compiled version of it; do your own, get alternatives.
>>52105051
I tried to publish Sonic / Pokemon crossover fan fiction, but Archie comics and Nintendo said no.
>>52105070
>Most decent universities allow anyone to sit in lectures, provided its not a small session in the upper years.
In every lecture? The whole day? For years?
You've never been to college if you think having the same non-students/faculty members regularly on campus would be well-received.
>>52104968
>We lost...
No you didn't lose anything. Someone else provided better competition. >>52104580
>A chair is too broad, anon, and not even a remotely good analogy
No difference. The same can be said about loads of modern inventions and algorithms and stuff which arbitrarily go from being usable by one person to being usable by anyone after some fixed amount of time. It doesn't make sense to say intellectual property is some kind of fundamental right, because it isn't. Not to say it's any less valid than any other leftist policy.
>>52105036
Ok I just did it. I entered lecture hall at my local university, sat down, and nothing happened.
Lecturers don't memorize everyone who is registered for the class. Grow a pair and try it hour for yourself sometime, you might learn something in the process.
>>52105100
Are you literally retarded?
How will anyone know who's a student or not? Who has the time to inpsect student IDs at the door?
You can get a free education but you won't get certified.
>non-students/faculty members regularly on campus would be well-received.
Again, its one of those things. No one cares. No one is harmed.
>ITT: People who say that information is free but are unhappy with me filming them in the shower calling it an "invasion of their privacy"
Why are you so hypocritical, /g/? Information is free, isn't it? Why can't I videotape you 24/7 as long as I don't trespass on your property? I mean, it's public space after all. I can follow you around and tweet your current location in regular intervals... Information is free, right?
>>52105107
>let me prove piracy is moral by getting a small demo offered to me for free
>>52105003
Typical commie who doesn't understand what property is.
You're not forced to give away anything. You're just not entitled to say what other people can do with information.
>>52105135
Piracy is illegal, but your analogy doesn't make sense. Please leave
If you think information is free and no one gets harmed with it being shared you have no right to complain about Chrome being a botnet or mods selling users out.
>>52105105
>No you didn't lose anything. Someone else provided better competition.
Actually, they didn't, and as far as I can tell they didn't make any considerable amount of money on it either.
>No difference.
There clearly is a difference.
>he same can be said about loads of modern inventions and algorithms and stuff which arbitrarily go from being usable by one person to being usable by anyone after some fixed amount of time.
After that fixed amount of time our patents will no longer be valid and the rights will fall into public domain too, so your argument is invalid.
>Not to say it's any less valid than any other leftist policy.
I don't know why you are spouting "leftist" all the time. Surely forcing us to give away something we don't wish to give away resembles socialism more than trying to make an honest living out of a brilliant idea?
>>52105164
like most people, these users are selfish. they never planned on making money on publicly distributed information, so they don't care about violation of copyright of such public material
>>52105154
>You're not forced to give away anything. You're just not entitled to say what other people can do with information.
It's not "information", it's our actual physical product.
>>52105164
>>52105130
These
>>52105188
Even if they did plan to make money on that info, others selling it is just competition, right?
>>52105154
>>52105190
Also it's information you don't have, but are trying to obtain in an illegal fashion, anon.
>>52105208
>Even if they did plan to make money on that info, others selling it is just competition, right?
obv., this is the interpretation of those that don't rely on sales like that.
>>52105188
If intentions matter at all in the argument, the intention of the person in trying to sell their product should matter at least as much, if not more.
>>52105154
>>52104924
>>52104924
>>52104724
>>52104468
>claims not to be a communist
>thinks that all people are identical and that "information" is just some magical stream in the ether every man can connect to and get "free" information from
>actually believing that anyone could make anything
>still claims not to be a communist
>>52105164
I have a problem with that. But i already accepy anything I do on the public internet (barring private emails and portals) to be public domain.
I willingly use chrome because I keep my information "tracks" controllled so that nothing too sensitive ever comes out.
This is no different than a city hall employee looking through civvy files. It's "FREE" information to them because they are right there where the source it. They can give it out for "FREE" if they wished, no one would know.
Same with "pirates". They find a source because its there. They share the data because they want to.
On top of that, it's hard to pinpoint a user's motivation just from "pirating". Have you considered, what if they previously purchased a DVD movie and they are merely getting a "copy" because they can't be bothered with Ripping DVDs for digital collection. They may already own the information just not in the medium he/she wants.
>>52100143
Says the faggot who probably uses adblock
>>52105090
>I tried to publish Sonic / Pokemon crossover fan fiction, but Archie comics and Nintendo said no.
all of my keks!
>>52105267
>This is no different than a city hall employee looking through civvy files. It's "FREE" information to them because they are right there where the source it. They can give it out for "FREE" if they wished, no one would know.
So you have no problem with private corporations going into the city hall and obtaining personal information about you, such as criminal records, where you live, car registration etc?
>dump database for popular website
>lol unsalted md5 passwords
>rainbow table to reveal passwords on clear text
>navigate to custom domains from the email addresses users signed up with (e.g. [email protected])
>login with the password from the last website (they're an admin on this website, what luck)
>repeat above steps
>tfw people use the same password and username for every website including bank accounts, email, paypal, etc
Dude it's just data, 1s and 0s, I didn't do anything wrong!
>>52104069
>y-you neckbeard manchild
Oh shit you got me there now. :^)
>>52105309
Information is freeeeeeeee!
>>52100143
bad example op. You can't make a duplicate of a car. You can make a duplicate of a file
One is theft, the other is piracy
Both are theft none the less.
>>52105352
>You can't make a duplicate of a car.
Of course you can, the Chinese have been doing this for years
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/features/car-culture/its-a-knock-off-chinas-copycat-cars-at-the-2015-shanghai-motor-show/
>>52105177
>Actually, they didn't, and as far as I can tell they didn't make any considerable amount of money on it either.
That's just the nature of information. It has no value. Nobody can make money from purely information on its own since it isn't a commodity. Kikes who can't accept this then go on to make laws and restrictions to try to create some way of milking money out of it for doing nothing.
>After that fixed amount of time our patents will no longer be valid and the rights will fall into public domain too, so your argument is invalid.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying here. I'm aware of all that. I'm saying that it clearly isn't some natural right people have to be able to say that other people can't use information. It's something made up. Property doesn't have to be made up with some artificial restrictions which say anybody can make use of some real property after a few years because it's still the case that it's a real commodity which may only be usable by one person at once, and can be lost stolen and damaged.
>forcing us to give away something
The default would be to force nothing, which means you're not forced to not use information just because they are the "copyright holder".
>>52105265
Nobody is entitled to receive information. The act of providing information to somebody is work and a service which has value. It's just that it's wrong to think that only one person should be allowed to provide this service. It just so happens to be the case that nowadays, the work of providing information to people has very little value, since people can easily copy files over the internet, which means a lot of people do that for free. Nobody is obliged to seed torrents.
Also, remember that people still have every right to make money from information, whether it be charging for distribution of information, or charging to write a song or draw a picture for example.
>>52104468
>Original thought doesn't exist
Found the chink everyone
>hurr durr i too could be smart and invent it but that guy just was quicker than me!!!
>>52105267
You'd have no issue with that city hall guy going through your data, finding out you're uninsured, putting it out there how many cars you own, what your house is worth, where you work and how much you make, and after someone makes use of that to rob you, give that same info to security and insurance companies so they can target you when you're vulnerable?
>>52105304
They can do that if they really wanted to you know that right?
I do have a problem with that, its just that I cant prevent that employee for not selling out. Its beyond my control unless I go full hermit and live off grid.
>>52105036
>You first, I have a good pet theory of what would happen.
You really are a fucking idiot you know that? Unis never check who is attending a lecture and who isn't. Any random fuck can attend a lecture unless you're distracting other students or if you aren't allowed on the premises.
I get your point but your example is retarded.
>>52105395
>I do have a problem with that, its just that I cant prevent that employee for not selling out
But thanks to people who aren't as dumb, if found out, that employee could face repercussions. Same goes for pirates.
>>52102771
Carl Marx was a Lutheran by conversion but he was raised by Jews.
>>52105384
Found the schlup who thinks they're smarter than everyone
Grow up
>>52105379
>That's just the nature of information. It has no value.
But it has, otherwise we wouldn't make money.
>Nobody can make money from purely information on its own since it isn't a commodity.
Software is purely information, yet people make money from it all the time.
>The default would be to force nothing, which means you're not forced to not use information just because they are the "copyright holder".
This is nonsensical. Of course we are not forced to do anything, but we choose to in order to make money.
Also, you're confusing copyright with patents.
>Also, remember that people still have every right to make money from information, whether it be charging for distribution of information, or charging to write a song or draw a picture for example.
Now you're running in circles, you just said information has no value.
>>52100175
Capitalism: We have the capability to do great things, but only if we rip someone else off to do it (profits)
Seriously, the reason why piracy and copying anything should be a legal act is because we have the capacity to do so and we can all benefit from it. There's more than enough food and water to support the entire planet, yet only those with money have access to it. This is a very ignorant way of life, cripples technological progression, and is probably why aliens have not visited us yet. We still have an incredibly long way to go before we start thinking like a species and not as individuals. We need to understand that nothing of significance can be accomplished without a relative quantity of dedicated people, and then when we help out members of our species, we are helping ourselves as well.
>>52105309
But that's sensitive user data, it's different from copyrighted music, m8
>>52105411
>if you aren't allowed on the premises
If you were ever in a real college, you'd know most of them have ID cards for students and temp cards for visitors, and that lists with who comes and goes, and when, are kept. You know, to keep undesirables off campus.
If you try going to a serious institution every day, you will soon find out you'll be questioned and prevented from entering it without having a good reason.
>>52105449
>There's more than enough food and water to support the entire planet
Actually, there isn't. There is a reason why shit hole countries are continuing to cut down precious jungle and forests and dry out lakes in order to make more fields for crops.
>>52105453
So some information is more valuable than other? Who decides that?
Oh, that's right. The owner.
>>52104375
so you are saying the creator of the product should starve to death because you do not want to pay his fair price
>>52105473
Yes there is
Do not listen to this person.
>>52105453
How is it different?
All information is free, remember.
>>52105433
>But it has, otherwise we wouldn't make money.
To some extent it does, through the artificial restrictions put into place with intellectual property laws. It wouldn't otherwise.
>Now you're running in circles, you just said information has no value.
I think you are confusing information having value with services involving information having value.
>>52105416
Okay, thats beyond the argument now.
The point is information being free is relative. We don't have direct access to the source so its not free for us. To those with the source, they can "leak" to whomever they want because its FREE for them.
Imagine walking down the streeet, someone gave you a FREE pamphlet. You accept it and consume it like any other pamplhet. What you didn't know was that pamphlet costed 20$ to make, and a lot of man power to distribute. The guy who gave it to you, merely "stole" a stack of these phamplets and started handing them out to everyone.
A. He just did some work for the phamplet makers, they got their information across.
B. The guy who stole the phamplets made little to no profit.
C. End user enjoys the consumed information, without knowing the costs of that information, and without knowing he just took "free" stolen "free" phamplets.
Points A and C apply to "piracy".
Id even go as far as to say that "piracy" increases viewership and thus prestige/fame for that movie. Word of mouth is king.
Point
>>52105460
Lmao but you're wrong, you fucking berk. It's a class, not disneyland, no one's checking your id to get into lecture halls.
>>52104375
They should just get a real job if they can't afford it. Isn't that what we tell programmers, musicians and artists?
>>52105473
There's plenty of farmland on the planet, more than enough to support all of us if we worked together.
>>52100175
Make something worth paying for then
>>52105483
>>52105491
Because if someone steals your login credentials you risk having your bank account drained, morons
>>52105508
>no one gets checked at the campus gate ever
Do you live in school shooter heaven or something?
>>52105460
For libraries and research labs, yes you need ID.
Literally anyone can walk into class and get a free education.
>>52105502
>To some extent it does, through the artificial restrictions put into place with intellectual property laws. It wouldn't otherwise.
You could argue that any law is artificial, I'm getting really tired of you now. Only a communist in disguise would want the end of capitalistic competition through the abolishment of industry secrets and stil claim to be capitalist.
>I think you are confusing information having value with services involving information having value.
No, I was responding explicitly to the statement I greentexted, namely that people have the right to make money from information. You didn't say distribution of information or services involving information, you said information.
Which includes acts such as blackmailing... Just saying.
>>52104375
why make the product then
>>52105538
By your standards, me giving away your credit card number and password is okay. The criminal is just the guy who uses it.
You're a fucking moron.
>>52105538
Information is free
Those bank accounts are just 1s and 0s. They have no intrinsic value.
>>52105483
i don't know about more valuable. If you take money out of their accounts, though, you are removing limited assets. They will get negative transfers because of you - directly, proportional to the dollars you yourself take.
>>52105543
>implying that murderers care about school ids
>implying that school shooters don't have ids
>implying that ids are checked in lecture halls
Lmao go to college and find out for yourself
>>52105600
Check >>52105575
Indirectly and knowingly contributing to a crime makes you an accomplice.
>>52105534
Actually, I did, which is why people want to steal it so they can make money from it.
See
>>52104286
>>52104650
>>52104738
>>52105489
this whole analogy is broken, but the creator wouldn't starve at all, he could just copy the bread as well, and as a last resort visit the skidrow store, right?
>>52105575
>>52105598
>being this incredulous for the sake of being right on the Internet
Too bad you're wrong though. A bank account is much more valuable than a copy of a song. Unless it's your bank account hahahah
>>52105503
If the pamphlet was going to be sold, fuck that guy. He is wrong.
It's also worth noting everyone pirating knows what piracy is.
>>52105614
>crime makes you an accomplice.
Thats the point we're arguing retard.
Piracy: crime or not?
>>52105460
>If you were ever in a real college, you'd know most of them have ID cards for students and temp cards for visitors, and that lists with who comes and goes, and when, are kept.
There are no lists with who comes and goes, except for people like journalists and employees.
Yes, you get an ID card for your school, but nobody ever checks it unless they are suspicious of you which, unless you are a smelly 40 year old, they won't be. You only need the card to enter some labs and parking garages.
Anyone can enter the premise and sit down at a random class, no problem. It's not a fucking military base.
>>52105530
It's also more than enough as everything is if just two gorillean poo in loos just offed themselves and two gorillean chinks offed themselves as well, and one half gorillean nignogs drowned themselves.
>>52105655
No, it's more than enough without reducing the population.
>>52105636
>Too bad you're wrong though. A bank account is much more valuable than a copy of a song. Unless it's your bank account hahahah
So information DOES have some value, then? You admit it?
Can someone make a new thread? I think we're getting somewhere here. A few more of these threads and we'll have it all figured out.
>>52105644
Answer: yes.
>>52105646
>Yes, you get an ID card for your school, but nobody ever checks it unless they are suspicious of you which
I'm just glad I didn't go to college in a place where you worked as a security guard. If only smelly middle-aged dudes are looked into, you're going to get a lot of muggings.
>>52105671
But we need to make changes then.
I don't see why white people should lose. Why can't we just even the numbers to make the world more diverse?
>>52105674
He shot himself in the foot with that.
>>52105693
What exactly are white people losing?
>>52105674
Yes, if it implies ah direct link with a physical entity, for example a bank account. A song lacks that link. If someone copies it, nothing is lost. If someone hijacked my bank account, my savings are lost. If you could make a copy of my bank account and a copy of my savings, which was not linked to my actual savings then by all means be my guest.
>>52105719
we always here that it's not overpopulation, it's overconsumption. So that means we would have to downsize, give up luxuries to accomodate the billions of poor third worlders
we're talking about practical solutions, not theoretical possibilities, right?
>>52105719
Our current way of life.
I don't want to work together, that implies reducing my standards. It's not white people who starve, it's everyone else. If it wasn't so god darned many of them, they wouldn't starve and there would be plenty to go around from their own share of everything.
>>52105732
>A song lacks that link. If someone copies it, nothing is lost.
Except the link with the physical entity, a.k.a. the money that would go to the artist when the song was bought.
You're being very intellectually dishonest.
>>52105641
>sold Pamplet
Okay, lets move on to the digital world. A man finds a template of these pamplets. The Phamplet producer schedules 300 copies to printed, bought, and distributed for $1 dollar just for argument.
The "pirate", who has access to the phamplet tempate, decides to make the phamplet freely avaliable in free formats, without no cost.
Questions:
- Did the "pirate" steal from the 300 printed copies? The answer is no. No theft was involved.
- Did the "pirate" steal $300 dollars worth of value from the company? No. No theft was involved.
- Did the "pirate" steal "potential" customers from the company? No. Here's why: he gave it away as free samples, with no profit to him.
- When is it considered stealing? When he sells the phamplets for profit.
>It's also worth noting everyone pirating knows what piracy is.
That may be true, but you cant pinpoint the ownership status of that "pirated" media. What if the owner wanted a digital format of his DVD?
>>52105567
>the end of capitalistic competition
Intellectual property is directly denying competition. Whatever you're describing as ending competition is speculative and nothing to do with capitalism. Also I never said people aren't allowed to keep secrets.
Property has value without laws saying they do so. It's the nature of the world that you have to put work in to obtain something, and it's not possible for multiple people to simultaneously have exclusive access to a commodity that exists in the world.
Making money from information = making money from distribution of information or services involving information.
Information in itself, as a commodity, has no value.
>>52105732
>Yes, if it implies ah direct link with a physical entity, for example a bank account.
So, the intellectual property (aka firmware and blue prints and design schemas etc) that are directly linked with the physical entity (the actual card my company produce and sell) has value, then?
>If you could make a copy of my bank account and a copy of my savings, which was not linked to my actual savings then by all means be my guest.
That would cause hyperinflation and mean that your money would be essentially worthless. Which is why piracy is bad, you are undermining the worth of what you are pirating.
>>52105772
>Except the link with the physical entity, a.k.a. the money that would go to the artist when the song was bought.
not every copy is a guaranteed sale, it's a potential loss, a potential link.
>>52104825
>Company uses DRM?
Fucking dropped.
>Sells user data?
Dropped.
>Subscription model?
Dropped.
>"in-app purchases"
Dropped.
You want to stop companies from doing that shit? Don't fucking support them. You don't need that shit.
>>52105781
>- Did the "pirate" steal "potential" customers from the company? No. Here's why: he gave it away as free samples, with no profit to him.
He can indeed cost them sales if people are satisfied with the samples. You're coming from the assumption no one who pirates would ever buy. That much is not true.
If the content isn't yours, it's not your call to decide how and to whom it should be shared.
>>52105752
Considering how a major factor contributing to the poverty of third world nation is due to exploitation by rich businesses, these businesses would need to accept that they cannot have it all. This does not mean they will need to live lives akin to the current middle class, but they should not have 3000 USD to spend on a handbag when the people who work underneath them to make them money are starving and have no access to medical care.
>>52105753
I'm just replying to say your post is not worth a serious response.
>>52105785
>Intellectual property is directly denying competition
It is not. It is allowing competition, but through actual innovation rather than cheap knock-offs.
>Also I never said people aren't allowed to keep secrets.
But you did, you said that the chinese workers that ran off with our product and tried to make their own copy were allowed to do this and that we trying to prevent this were "evil jews"
>Information in itself, as a commodity, has no value.
Apparently, it does, see >>52105674
Otherwise you wouldn't mind giving me your CC number, security number and PIN, or... ?
>>52105684
>I'm just glad I didn't go to college in a place where you worked as a security guard.
I'm not a security guard though.
>you're going to get a lot of muggings.
really? There's about 12.000 people who study at my uni and muggings, or other crimes, are unheard of.
But please, tell me more about safety
>>52105848
>I'm just replying to say your post is not worth a serious response.
Translated: I'm going to shitpost because I can't refute what you said
>>52105806
Every copy would be a guaranteed sale without piracy. It is only not a guaranteed sale because of piracy.
Not every bullet would hit a target, but every bullet wound is made by a bullet. You're using a false equivalence.
>>52105848
>Considering how a major factor contributing to the poverty of third world nation is due to exploitation by rich businesses, these businesses would need to accept that they cannot have it all. This does not mean they will need to live lives akin to the current middle class, but they should not have 3000 USD to spend on a handbag when the people who work underneath them to make them money are starving and have no access to medical care.
>the 1% should pay
the 1% couldn't even make all of us in the first world rich, they could never make the world population rich.
>>52105866
>Every copy would be a guaranteed sale without piracy.
No, where did you get this? if it costs nothing many hoarders or bored people just let it flow onto their hard drive, sometimes without even opening the media later on.
>>52105881
You don't need to be rich to live outside of poverty.
>>52105865
back to /pol/ with you
>>52105866
>every bullet wound is made by a bullet
so, we should - ban all bullets?
>>52105895
>back to /pol/ with you
Why, you fucking idiot? Because you are a leftist extremist who disagrees with me? I'm just saying that a solution that requires me to lower my living standards is to me and most of the western world about as feasible to be implemented as millions of people killing themselves to solve the problem with world hunger...
>>52105895
>You don't need to be rich to live outside of poverty.
no, but when you divide the riches among millions of people, it soon reduces to nothing more than minor improvements per person
>>52105843
People took the information and consumed it on the basis that it was free though.
If people took the phamplet and consumed it knowing that it costed $1, then its fair, the pirate "stole", if and only if, he sold that for $1.
>>52105849
>It is not. It is allowing competition, but through actual innovation rather than cheap knock-offs.
So you're saying it's allowing competition some of the time, but denying it when it's "cheap knock-offs". That's still denying it.
>But you did, you said that the chinese workers that ran off with our product and tried to make their own copy were allowed to do this and that we trying to prevent this were "evil jews"
If it's a secret, then why do other people know about it? Either you've not protected your secret very well and have allowed other people to see it, or it's not actually a secret at all, and you feel entitled to say everyone must perpetuate your secret if they haven't agreed to keep a secret.
>Apparently, it does, see
The value there comes from agreements you make with somebody, i.e. your bank. Not information itself.
>>52105843
>If the content isn't yours, it's not your call to decide how and to whom it should be shared.
Also, I agree. But like I said, if you are close to the source and you can leak it for free? Who's gonna stop you? You will never prevent that from happening, even with proper crime laws. In fact, it may even make it more lucrative to "steal" "templates" in the future.
You are relying on the honesty of people, which will never be 100% true.
>>52105893
>No, where did you get this?
You cannot possibly argue that without piracy/theft/being gifted the product by someone involved in making it, any copy in the hands of the end-consumer would not mean a sale. It is illogical.
>>52105954
No, it's ripping off the person who made them for the purpose of selling it just the same.
>>52105979
>You cannot possibly argue that without piracy/theft/being gifted the product by someone involved in making it, any copy in the hands of the end-consumer would not mean a sale. It is illogical.
there are more copies with piracy, since it is so easy and cheap to make them. not all of those copies would've been a sale.
>>52105972
Most crime is impossible to prevent. That's why we make ways to prosecute people after the fact.
At the current day and age, stopping piracy from happening is nearly impossible, even with DRM. But it doesn't make it right, just something popular.
>>52105979
Ripping them off? Maybe.
But that's assuming the person would even buy for $1. If they knew the price tag, they may never buy it.
>>52106020
>not all of those copies would've been a sale.
If even a single one of them would be, that's already a direct damage.
>>52106024
And they'd never experience it, which would be okay. It's not the same as not paying and experiencing it.
>>52106023
>But it doesn't make it right
I agree to an extent.
If the pirate sells it for profit then it's worth the conviction.
If the pirate distributes free copies for no profit,
its like going after your shadow and the against human nature. People dont always do things for profit and will always be enticed with a "free" tag.
>>52106023
people aren't interested in protecting special interest groups. That's why piracy is rampant
>>52105959
>So you're saying it's allowing competition some of the time, but denying it when it's "cheap knock-offs". That's still denying it.
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, because in the latter case it's actually fraud.
>If it's a secret, then why do other people know about it?
They didn't, obviously, since they were unable to obtain the information (aka firmware). Didn't stop them from trying to obtain it though.
>Either you've not protected your secret very well and have allowed other people to see it,
So you're somehow entitled to secrets that you are able to obtain then? I can hack into a bank that has weak security because the security is weak? The weak should fear the strong, is that it?
> or it's not actually a secret at all, and you feel entitled to say everyone must perpetuate your secret if they haven't agreed to keep a secret.
But they did agree to keep it a secret, and then they broke that contract... Do you really think we would do our manufacturing at a place where they didn't sign a NDA?
>The value there comes from agreements you make with somebody, i.e. your bank. Not information itself.
So give me your credentials then. I don't have any agreement with your bank, the value would be worthless to me.
>>52105927
Your original post is so retarded, that the amount of time it would take for me to explain to you why it's retarded is not worth it.
>>52105928
>it soon reduces to nothing more than minor improvements per person
You're still thinking in terms of wealth relative to other people. What I am saying is that we have the capability to support our entire race. Profit only exists when someone is paying more than what a product or service costs to produce, and many people have the idea that you are not wealthy or successful unless you are wealthier than others. This paradigm is always going to result in those who have too much, and those who have too little. This is not about dividing riches, but instead gravitating towards a system that ensures members of our species have access to basic needs in order to stay alive. We have the means, but not if profits are the ends.
>>52106060
Human nature says it's okay to rape too. We prosecute rapists, even when the victim lives. Fuck, we prosecute people who may or may not be rapists, based entirely on testimonies, with no physical evidence.
>>52106057
>If even a single one of them would be, that's already a direct damage.
Yes, but it can't be proven. And also, individual copies are then only "part of the problem", nobody knows which one of the copies substituted a sale or not.
>>52106057
>And they'd never experience it, which would be okay.
No it won't. How will it generate buzz/WoM around that media?
And who's to say, I won't invite them over to watch the movie with me for FREE. Am I pirate then?
>>52106102
>Your original post is so retarded, that the amount of time it would take for me to explain to you why it's retarded is not worth it.
No, you're just dismissing it because you have no real counter-argument.
Tell me, WHY should *I* accept a reduced living standard because OTHER people starve and it's their own fault for being so selfish that they keep having babies in a place where there simply isn't enough resources?
>You're still thinking in terms of wealth relative to other people.
I'm pretty sure he's thinking of wealth in absolute measure.
>What I am saying is that we have the capability to support our entire race.
It's a baseless claim that lacks all and any support. Obviously we don't, otherwise we wouldn't have world hunger, war over resources, etc
>>52106128
>Yes, but it can't be proven.
The opposite also cannot be proven. Which is why courts often side with whoever does own the rights to the product.
>>52106112
We're moving onto rape where emotional well being and other stuff is involved. Don't.
Prosecute pirates who makes profits.
Dont prosecute "pirate" who don't make profits.
It's really that simple.
>>52106102
>You're still thinking in terms of wealth relative to other people. What I am saying is that we have the capability to support our entire race. Profit only exists when someone is paying more than what a product or service costs to produce, and many people have the idea that you are not wealthy or successful unless you are wealthier than others. This paradigm is always going to result in those who have too much, and those who have too little. This is not about dividing riches, but instead gravitating towards a system that ensures members of our species have access to basic needs in order to stay alive. We have the means, but not if profits are the ends.
if people can't help themselves, they risk not receiving help. And they aren't entitled to receive help from others.
furthermore, not everything that is possible in the short term is sustainable. We may actually destroy our planet for the short term goal of keeping an excess population of people alive
>>52106134
>Am I pirate then?
If they're leaving your apartment with personal copies, yes. If they have to come over every time, they want to see it and depend on your availability unless they buy their own copies, not really.
>How will it generate buzz/WoM around that media?
Gee, I don't know, maybe PR/marketeers should do their job? Businesses have been offering demos and teasers since forever, and unlike piracy, they get to decide how much is offered.
>>52106179
>Prosecute pirates who makes profits.
Yes.
>Dont prosecute "pirate" who don't make profits.
No.
>Prosecute people who get in the way of you making a living by distributing your stuff to everyone with an internet connection.
>>52106160
those forming our laws know that placing the doubt on the producer will deincentivize the creation of information, and they don't see the importance for freeloading
>>52106195
PR and marketers will always be behind the curve, trying to influence opinion.
Do you think all of those kids at /mu/ are buying their shitty hipster current year albums? Not all of them, but they are generating/shilling a lot because of the free albums they "pirated" and thus spreading free fame to others.
Should we charge PR/Marketers for every person we put on to the media?
>>52106146
>Tell me, WHY should *I* accept a reduced living standard because OTHER people starve and it's their own fault for being so selfish that they keep having babies in a place where there simply isn't enough resources?
We still have an incredibly long way to go before we start thinking like a species and not as individuals. We need to understand that nothing of significance can be accomplished without a relative quantity of dedicated people, and then when we help out members of our species, we are helping ourselves as well.
>It's a baseless claim that lacks all and any support. Obviously we don't, otherwise we wouldn't have world hunger, war over resources, etc
A major factor contributing to the poverty of third world nation is due to exploitation by rich businesses
Profit only exists when someone is paying more than what a product or service costs to produce, and many people have the idea that you are not wealthy or successful unless you are wealthier than others
This is why I did not want to indulge you. You still have a long way to go before you can understand what I'm saying.
>>52106179
>It's really that simple.
because you're a pirate that doesn't make profits
>>52100143
Piracy is immoral.
That being said I still do it. Stop acting like moral fags and just fucking own up to it.
Nobody cares that you do it, but just don't act like you're doing the world a huge favor.
>>52106279
No im an end user.
>>52106096
>because in the latter case it's actually fraud.
That should only be considered fraud if you claim to be someone else or claim it is literally the same product by the same person when it isn't.
>So you're somehow entitled to secrets that you are able to obtain then? I can hack into a bank that has weak security because the security is weak? The weak should fear the strong, is that it?
Yes.
But they did agree to keep it a secret, and then they broke that contract... Do you really think we would do our manufacturing at a place where they didn't sign a NDA?
If that is the case, then they have done wrong. That is breaking a contract and not doing what they agreed to do so you should be compensated by them.
>So give me your credentials then. I don't have any agreement with your bank, the value would be worthless to me.
I don't want to and don't need to. I have every right to not tell anyone.
>>52106286
>"Hey I found this piece of information I can readily reproduce, for nearly no cost, and I can even share with my friends"
>>52106298
making money on someone else's product is the icing on the cake
>>52106324
>"...and I know I'll be fucking over someone, but that's really their fault for making things nice enough to share"
>>52106325
It really is.... low scum tier work
but hey it works, right? because they are playing with human nature of wanting cheap shit.
>>52106351
>"Let me just worry about this corporation's well being while I enjoy this information I copied and not stole"
>>52106181
I agree that they are not entitled to receive help from others, I'll even add that the exploited bear part of the burden for their poverty for allowing businesses to profit from their work. These problems exist because of the selfish attitude people have towards life and success. It's quite possible that one day we may reach a population that the Earth cannot sustain. We are far from that day and should do what we can to accommodate our fellow humans. Doing so increases our capabilities to develop technology that could enable us to leave Earth sooner and enhance its ability to sustain us.
>>52106377
>"...after all, no one with rent to pay and kids to feed works there, it's just an empty building that burns money and shits out products for me to stea-OOPS FEEL MORALLY JUSTIFIED IN SHARING BECAUSE I'M PROMOTING THEM"
>>52106382
>We are far from that day and should do what we can to accommodate our fellow humans.
also giving up luxuries? why do we need to spend everything this earth gives us on keeping people alive? the world is imperfect and most of those people exist only due to those imperfections
>>52106406
>"I must be a thief for copying this information. The best of all thieves. I can even multiply this information for free like its magic. So, with the current logic of anti pirates, if I reproduce 1 billion copies of this file, and throw them around the street for free, I apparently would be stealing 1 billion from this corporation. Hmm.. I'll make 2 billion copies.
>>52106433
We need to give up certain luxuries (3000 USD handbags) so that other humans have the possibility of contributing to society. Why should we support people who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime when those who make them said money are struggling to put food on the table, pay rent, receive medical care, and on top of that save up for university?
>>52106480
Are you going to even try? The whole point of this thread's discussion is how distribution is the issue, not the copying itself.
>>52106504
Do prosecute pirates who make direct profits from distriubute copies of information.
Don't prosecure "pirates" who consume, not distribute, and share with friends and family (for that free generated PR)
>>52106485
I don't like the wealth inequality either. I'm not a friend of exploiting people. at the same time
if they don't even spend that money, then it doesn't compete for resources on the market needed for living. I don't know the statistics about 3000 USD handbags, but I'm pretty sure it's a nieche product. Capitalize one handbag for just 1000 people, each of them receive no more than $3. The luxury of those people is ridiculous, but at the same time there are very few of those super rich. reallocating the labour used to create their riches would still only make a minor difference on the whole economy
>>52106586
>not distribute
>and share
Those are literally the same.
>>52106613
Distribute has the "corporate" feel. Like DVD stands, and what not.
Sharing is when I invite you over to watch a movie with me. FOR FREE.
I come from Canada, Personal Use laws allow me DL torrents but not seed them.
>>52106654
>Sharing is when I invite you over to watch a movie with me. FOR FREE.
When was the last time anyone called you a pirate for inviting people over?
It's just not the same as giving them a copy.
>>52106736
But some people claim you should not experience the media you havent paid for.
>>52106598
It's not only about reallocating labor, but actual resources as well. If you believe there is not enough farmland, then why should Papa John have a 27 car garage when a driver who deliver his pizza live in a shitty apartment and will never afford college? Papa has the capability to downsize to a 5 car garage, offloading the expenses to those underneath him. There are few people who are super rich, but the ones who are hog resources that could be used to save lives and in turn increase human productivity. Considering how 90% of the wealth goes to 1% of the population, this means that in our current system, anyone below the 1%'s income is essentially surviving based on 10% of the wealth. In other words, if businesses took action to redistribute only 10% of their wealth, then the 99% would have TWICE as much money to barter with as they do now. Of course, money is a human construct and, as such, there is NOT a 1:1 ratio between money and resources. It is simply undeniable, however, that the 1% has an egregious amount of resources that they do not need and could be invested in other members of our species. This is not just to "balance" how we live, but rather to ensure we all have the opportunity to be productive.
>>52106783
Disregarding an issue because you disagree with one argument is not intellectually honest.
If you share copies of something being sold, you are getting in the way of the business. You can call it whatever you want, but it is not how the owners intended it to be distributed and how they expect to recoup what they invested in making it.
Just don't pretend it's the right thing to do, or that it's morally justifiable. It's not.
>>52106837
>Disregarding an issue
Im not. You can't claim it's morally wrong to share my copy of LOTR to my gf.
Like I said, its unethical to pirate for profit. It's an issue yes. But a non-issue to end users.
>>52106799
>There are few people who are super rich, but the ones who are hog resources that could be used to save lives and in turn increase human productivity.
I doubt that they do such a good job of hogging all resources. I think they just have tons of money to ensure they will win every bid. If the money of them was passed around, the main effect would be deflation.
There is lots of farmland but is it watered? how can you water it without needing tons of resources for that as well, and so on. It's not so easy and it will have an ecological footprint
>>52106876
>You can't claim it's morally wrong to share my copy of LOTR to my gf.
Let her borrow it? Not wrong.
Burn her a copy so you can both use it simultaneously is wrong, and you're just trying to make yourself feel better by pretending it's any different from leaking it to the web.
>>52106916
I dont feel bad, I dont commit a crime and Im not distributing for profit.
>Burn her a copy so you can both use it simultaneously is wrong,
Well if some piracy god was watching , I'll be sure to tell her to tell me when she's watching that burnt copy. Not because for convinence, but because if we watched at the same time, we are cutting into some guys profit margins. Which the piracy god does not like.
>>52107133
>I dont commit a crime
You do, distribution is a crime. Lie to yourself all you want, but your action is immoral.
>>52107505
Tell this to me with a straigh face,
Me burning a copy for my gf
is the same as
Me burning a copy to sell to other people
Yeah. Get off you moral high ground. Corporations only want to maximize profits and have little care for our philosophical issues.
>>52107582
>Me burning a copy for my gf
>is the same as
>Me burning a copy to sell to other people
doesn't have to be the same to be wrong
>>52107693
The first is not a crime
The second is.
Heart of the law, etc etc.
>>52107788
your piracy is small and limited, but making the copy instead of just renting her the DVD is still piracy.
>>52107866
Im not a criminal in my Country.
Personal Use laws.
>>52100143
Oh, so you copied the manufacturing plant, paid for your own electricity, parts and labor to make an exact replica? good for you OP, I don't think anyone got hurt.
