Where to find (old and hard to find) Seiyuu mp3s?
Hokkemirin
I am looking for some seiyuu mp3s, so I figured this would be the
place to go. A lot of the stuff is from old, hard to find or out of
print CDs, so I was wondering if anyone here either had or could tell
me where to find some mp3s (and I can try and buy stuff that's still
available if I like it). anyway, the stuff I'm looking for is:
Mariko Kouda Albums (Pure, Vivid, Happy!, Nandedatteba?, Daisuki na
Uta, Yatte Miyou, Sora and Aitakute)
Kikuko Inoue Albums (Elegant Fish, Tadaima, Mizuumi, Tanoshii Koto)
Idol Project Albums (First Present, Second Stage and New Dream)
Assemble Insert Concert
Thanks very much. My roommate and I have many things we can trade if
that's what it takes, but I have been looking unsuccessfully for these
for a long time now...
Michael Hayden
Hokkemirin <hokkem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm new, so sorry if I'm not allowed to ask this.
[deletia]
(For crying out loud, we just posted the FAQ... *sigh*)
We do not discuss MP3 trading on this newsgroup. Real fans do not buy
bootlegs or trade MP3s. You obviously know what you're looking for, so
"sampling" is no excuse. And if those albums are truly OOP, then you're
just SOL.
HOWEVER, if you would like some help with tracking down those CDs and
*legitimately* acquiring them, then we'd be more than happy to oblige. The
regulars on this newsgroup are pros when it comes to getting supposedly
"hard to find" anime and J-pop albums.
For example, Kikuko Inoue's 'Tanoshii Koto'...
<http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=PCCG-541>
Heck, it's not even two years old. Methinks you just haven't looked very
hard (if at all).
Let us know what you want to do.
Eric VanHeest
> And if those albums are truly OOP, then you're just SOL.
With an attitude like that, is it any wonder people turn to piracy?
ru.ig...@usask.ca
I don't see how that follows. The statement isn't exactly
correct, but it is a statement of fact. If you don't consider
used CDs or rare CD stores, for example, then truly if a CD is
out-of-print, you are SOL. The statement isn't quite right,
however, because a desperate person should consider used CDs
or scouring to the ends of the Earth for a CD. But there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with the quoted statement that
would turn someone to piracy.
ru
--
Maintainer of the "Welcome to REC.ARTS.ANIME.MUSIC" FAQ
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/rec/arts/anime/music
and the Annual rec.arts.anime.* "What are we like?" survey
Rob Kelk
The "attitude like that" developed because of the piracy, not the other
way around.
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Michael Hayden
>The statement isn't quite right, however, because a desperate person
>should consider used CDs or scouring to the ends of the Earth for a CD.
C'mon, Ru, you know what I meant. I was simply playing with the acronyms a
bit -- OOP, SOL... get it? ;-)
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>With an attitude like that, is it any wonder people turn to piracy?
Wow, the rest of my post just went in one ear and right out the other,
didn't it...
Anyone past the age of fourteen already has their personal moral framework
pretty well sorted out. The "decision" to pirate isn't really a conscious
decision at all. A person either will or they won't, depending on their
framework.
For those who won't, it's blindingly obvious -- you don't do it because
it's Wrong (tm).
For those who will, it's simply been paddling around in their subconscious
waiting for the best rationalization, the right excuse, to come along.
Society may tell them it's Wrong (tm), but they really don't grok it.
Unfortunately -- and quite disturbingly -- there are far more of the
latter now than there are of the former. I have my theories as to why, but
that's another discussion...
Eric VanHeest
> Wow, the rest of my post just went in one ear and right out the other,
> didn't it...
No; I agreed with most of the rest of it, so I didn't comment on it.
Fancy that. I only think that statements such as "It's no longer
being sold, so if you don't have it, there's no proper way to get it"
encourage people to find "wrong" ways instead.
My "personal moral framework" considers purchasing used copies of media
to be no better than piracy, so when you say "You don't have to pirate;
you can find it used!" you aren't saying anything useful to me at all.
Oddly enough, with that mindset, I see perfectly well why people are
willing to pirate a song rather than waste time tracking down a used
copy when it's out of print. Why would you track down a used album to
purchase it, if you considered purchasing it used the moral equivalent
of buying a Son May CD?
Of course, your morals don't work that way, but that doesn't mean that
they are correct and mine aren't. Yours happen to follow a particular
legal precedent, but I don't consider that to be particularly relevant
to morality (some immoral things are perfectly legal, too).
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
["used is bad!" deletia]
Wha? If the seller doesn't keep any copies, what's wrong with buying used?
The artist has been compensated and there is no dilution, so what's the
problem? First sale doctrine.
Eric VanHeest
> Wha? If the seller doesn't keep any copies, what's wrong with buying used?
> The artist has been compensated and there is no dilution, so what's the
> problem? First sale doctrine.
The artist has been compensated for one person's entertainment, but not
for two (not according to the price placed on the entertainment by the
artist, at any rate). I can't convince you that it's wrong, because
it's just a moral feeling. The sale and purchase of used entertainment
media just "feels" wrong to me. I don't feel that way about things
with practical value (where entertainment isn't considered as such).
To me, it seems as though you were willing to pay what the artist was
asking for your entertainment, and then later decided that it really
wasn't worth what you paid. The buyer of the used media also feels
that the entertainment isn't worth full price, but instead of doing
without, he finds it "used." To me, this looks like people are setting
their own price on the entertainment to whatever they want. Whether
that price is zero or not is largely irrelevant; I feel the same way
if you give the media to someone else as well.
Tell me this: What's the difference between a dozen people "using" a
single CD until they are no longer entertained by it, then selling it
to the next person, and the same dozen people getting together and
purchasing the CD, making copies of it, and spending the exact same
amount of time (per person) "enjoying" the media that way, before no
longer being entertained by it?
Of course, with "mass piracy" there are clearer problems, but I'm not
talking about logistics, just about a moral feeling that there isn't
anything inherently "better" about the "used" example than the "pirate"
one. I don't think you can claim that piracy is "okay" in small groups
but not in large ones (not that I'm claiming you are), but I simply
can not see any moral (or financial) difference whatsoever between the
two small groups.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>The artist has been compensated for one person's entertainment, but not
>for two (not according to the price placed on the entertainment by the
>artist, at any rate). I can't convince you that it's wrong, because
>it's just a moral feeling. The sale and purchase of used entertainment
>media just "feels" wrong to me. I don't feel that way about things
>with practical value (where entertainment isn't considered as such).
[deletia]
You're right, we have different moral feelings on value of the album. You
value the intangible experience itself, the artist's service to the
listener. I value the physical possession of the album, as a certificate
of my right to receive the service, regardless of what the artist
originally charged for it.
I know what you're trying to say, but your way presumes that each
individual playing of the album is equivalent to a live performance, new
and unique every time. But it isn't. With the recording of the album, the
performance loses its uniqueness and is made a commodity, and as with any
commodity, that album -- that non-unique performance -- has different
value to different people at different times.
That commoditization is something the artist inherently agrees to when
they release the album, as part of the first sale doctrine. If they didn't
agree to it, they wouldn't release the album in the first place. They
would continue with only live performances, in which case the uniqueness
is preserved.
Let me ask you a few questions, to help me to understand your position:
- How do you feel about albums (or comic books, or classic cars, or cookie
jars) that become "collectible" and -increase- in price over time?
- How do you feel about artists who fade in popularity and go from playing
huge stadiums to playing hole-in-the-wall clubs? If they're playing the
same songs, why can't they charge the same ticket price?
- How do you feel about artists who sell their sheet music and let other
people perform their music? What has the real value, the notes or the
performance?
- How do you feel about artists like David Bowie who actually incorporate
themselves and sell shares in their catalog?
- How do you feel about the public domain? When, if ever, should a work
enter the public domain?
Eric VanHeest
> - How do you feel about albums (or comic books, or classic cars, or cookie
> jars) that become "collectible" and -increase- in price over time?
Collectible items completely baffle me; I've never understood them or
the people who collect them, and I doubt I ever will. The small bit I
do understand are the people who buy and sell the physical property
-only- as investments, with nary a care as to the actual content of the
media (it makes them just like any other practical investment, except
that I don't understand why they have value). It disturbs me that
artists intentionally create limited runs of certain things in order to
cater to this concept, as well, because it does nothing for me except
make things hard to find.
> - How do you feel about artists who fade in popularity and go from playing
> huge stadiums to playing hole-in-the-wall clubs? If they're playing the
> same songs, why can't they charge the same ticket price?
They can charge whatever they want; the market will decide whether that
price is worth paying. However, I don't understand the point of the
question - the proformer can charge whatever they feel like charging,
and you can buy it or not buy it, as you want. What you can't do (based
on the way I feel) is decide that you both want the entertainment, and
that you want to pay less for it than the artist is demanding. That's
something that pirates do; pay less (or zero) for the same
entertainment.
The pirates don't get the original media, but as far as I'm concerned
that's not relevant. I've been known to thow away CDs after having
them stored in the closet for months, because I have all of the
information I want from them in what I consider a much more useful
format. If I gave away the CDs, that would be piracy, since I'm
keeping my copies of the media, but I don't want them taking up space
in my apartment. I don't place any value whatsoever on the piece of
plastic or paper on which the media is sold (this ties in with the
incomprehensible collectible items).
> - How do you feel about artists who sell their sheet music and let other
> people perform their music? What has the real value, the notes or the
> performance?
I don't see sheet music as being particularly different than other media
formats. As far as I'm aware, purchasing sheet music doesn't
intrinsically give you the right to perform that music any more than
purchasing a CD gives you the right to broadcast the audio, so the two
questions aren't related.
I do feel that if you purchase sheet music, perhaps memorize it, and
then resell it, it's just as bad as used CDs.
If an artist makes a deal allowing someone else to perform their music,
that's between them. The new performers' CDs and whatnot are subject to
the same principles as the original artist's media.
> - How do you feel about artists like David Bowie who actually incorporate
> themselves and sell shares in their catalog?
I don't understand exactly what that entails, actually. If you could
provide more explanation or know of a web site that would help me, I
would be happy to read it and answer the question.
> - How do you feel about the public domain? When, if ever, should a work
> enter the public domain?
Theoretically? When people are no longer willing to purchase it new (or
when it's impossible to purchase it new). When it's not cost-effective
for the artists to produce new media, I think it's time for it to be
public domain (don't get me started on why I think royalties are an
incredibly bad system). I think that making something intentionally
unavailable but not public domain is reprehensible (and common,
unfortunately). That's why I made my original comment; it irks me in
the same way that the "mp3 kiddies" irritate you, I think :)
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>Collectible items completely baffle me; I've never understood them or
>the people who collect them, and I doubt I ever will.
I've been thinking for a couple days now about how to respond to Eric, but
based on just his first sentence above, I'm stumped. You're right, we have
completely different philosophies and we will never be able to persuade
each other.
However -- and I don't say this to be mean -- you are way, WAY off in the
extreme minority. Not only does your position on used CDs go against
established legal precedent (i.e., first sale doctrine), but if you don't
even grok the impulse to collect, then I simply have no way to explain to
you the peculiarities of life after retail. Sorry.
Here's a hint, though: human civilization got along just fine for 6,000+
years before the invention of corporations and shopping malls.
Chibi-Light
wrote:
>Here's a hint, though: human civilization got along just fine for 6,000+
>years before the invention of corporations and shopping malls.
Only 6k? I thought it was around 100 to 200 million. ^_^
*shuts up since he has nothing really productive to add*
CL
sanjian
news:3d0d0fa2...@news.earthlink.net...
Human civilization hasn't been around that long. The earth, maybe (though I
still don't have much faith in carbon dating).
Eric VanHeest
> However -- and I don't say this to be mean -- you are way, WAY off in the
> extreme minority.
I'm off in the minority on a lot of things. I have no desire to marry
or have children, for example (perhaps my type of mind and personality
tends to extinguish itself :) I have no desire to own a home (because
it means being tied to one place for a long time). I have absolutely no
desire for arbitrary physical objects, except as necessary to hold
digital information (food and shelter being unfortunate necessities). I
value experiences far more than items. Owning a large collection of
objects (which I do accrue when I spend enough time in one apartment,
because I'm rather lazy when it comes to throwing things out) is just
an annoyance and an eyesore.
I enjoy music very much, but I just don't see the media as being useful
for anything whatsoever other than to move the data around. I
understand that many people do, but I don't understand why. I do buy
CDs; in fact, I now buy far more than I used to, because I have better
ways to hold the music without having to keep large numbers of CDs
(and their associated cases, booklets, and other paraphernalia)
littering the place. I do need hard drives to store the music (and
videos, images, and whatever), but they are far less of a physical
footprint than the CDs are.
I do understand the concept of collecting music; I do collect the
music, I just don't care which physical device is currently holding
it. I don't collect "everything that isn't the music."
> Here's a hint, though: human civilization got along just fine for 6,000+
> years before the invention of corporations and shopping malls.
I'm really not sure what your point here is; humans existed perfectly
well before they had any objects to really call their own, as far as I
can imagine. If you're saying I might have a different way of thinking
about things if I didn't have the means to do the things I do, then
that's certainly possible; perhaps even obvious. I really don't care
how things were in the past, though; I can only draw on my life's
experiences when creating my personal philosophy.
I have a gedanken for you, that I think you'd find interesting, although
I don't intend to put it forth for any reason other than curiosity:
How would things be different if everyone had a personal, portable
data-storage mechanism of infinite capacity and negligible size, or
(even better) had an infinite-speed network connection to a central
data storage device of infinite size?
Chibi-Light
wrote:
>"
>> Only 6k? I thought it was around 100 to 200 million. ^_^
>Human civilization hasn't been around that long. The earth, maybe (though I
>still don't have much faith in carbon dating).
>
No, I was talking anatomically modern humans in general. Not real
"civilization" per se. And the earth has been around for about 4.5
billion years. And there's other forms of dating besides carbon
dating which is only truely acurate back to about *digs out archeology
notes* up to 50,000 years ago. It can also be used back to 100,000
years but beyond that there's not enough carbon 14 left to measure and
besides that, the window from 50kya to 100kya isn't very acurate to
begin with. Thank you.
CL
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I really don't care how things were in the past, though; I can only draw
>on my life's experiences when creating my personal philosophy.
Dude, you really should reconsider that. Ignorance of history is one
thing, but a complete indifference towards it borders on the sociopathic.
Of course, judging by the rest of your response, you sound perfectly happy
with being sociopathic. ^_^
Seriously, though, I think I see now where our philosophical difference
is. You perceive yourself living in a pure information-based economy,
where digital reproduction is perfect and infinite and where physical
commodities are an anachorism. You buy CDs simply because that's still
the only way to legitimately acquire the music. To you, the CDs themselves
have no intrinsic value.
I agree that we are moving towards such an economy, and I agree that in
such an economy, there would be no distinction between new and used.
However, WE AREN'T THERE YET -- and we probably won't be for at least
several decades. Scale back a bit, 'kay?
Eric VanHeest
> Dude, you really should reconsider that. Ignorance of history is one
> thing, but a complete indifference towards it borders on the sociopathic.
You perhaps misunderstand my viewpoint on historical matters. History
is an excellent tool for learning what works and what doesn't work.
However, I don't believe "for historical reasons" is valid logic
for anything. If the only reason a procedure exists is because it has
been done that way in the past, it's not useful; in fact, it can be
actively harmful if the circumstances leading to the necessary
historical use of that procedure are significantly different today.
(Examples are annoyingly abundant in which the use of a computer, or
the internet, would make a procedure much simpler, but old methods are
still used for no reason other than that nobody trusts the "new"
technology.)
> However, WE AREN'T THERE YET -- and we probably won't be for at least
> several decades. Scale back a bit, 'kay?
I admit to being addicted to rapid technological advancements; that's no
secret. I wish the rest of the world felt similarly :)
I don't really see any particular reason to adjust my views because
they are different from others, though. I can see where attempting to
impose my morals on others would be counterproductive in general, so I
don't endeavor to do that, but that doesn't need to keep me from
trying to explain myself when asked why I'm "so damn weird" :)
... or from making comments when people say to me that an item is "no
longer available new, but that's not a problem, because I can just get
it used. If I really wanted a piece of music, and my only recourse
was the used market, I would be just as likely to pirate it, since
it's stealing either way to me. In fact, I would probably feel worse
about buying it used, since that would be -financially- supporting
something I don't believe is "right."
If you're -really- bored, ask me how I feel about rentals :)
Chibi-Light
<e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>If you're -really- bored, ask me how I feel about rentals :)
You're in luck, I've ran out of things to do and I'm gonna be up for
the next two ro three hours, sooooo....
How do you feel about rentals?
CL
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>... or from making comments when people say to me that an item is "no
>longer available new, but that's not a problem, because I can just get
>it used. If I really wanted a piece of music, and my only recourse
>was the used market, I would be just as likely to pirate it, since
>it's stealing either way to me. In fact, I would probably feel worse
>about buying it used, since that would be -financially- supporting
>something I don't believe is "right."
I still don't understand why you think buying a used CD is equal to
outright piracy. If the artist is fully compensated on the original sale
and no copies are made, then there is no dilution of value. It is
transfered in total from one person to another. (Mind you, value is not
the same thing as price.)
Why does it matter what is exchanged between those two persons? It could
be given as a gift, it could be traded for a book, it could be sold for
less than retail, it could be sold for -more- than retail... Whatever it
is, it is a private transaction. The artist already got theirs. That is
first sale doctrine. That is the law.
Tell me, would you abolish flea markets? Would you abolish garage sales?
Would you abolish classified ads? If not, why not? Selling some old dishes
is no different than selling some used CDs, not in the real world.
I'm pressing the issue because while it's fine for you personally to
refuse to buy used CDs, it is NOT fine for you to state that buying used
CDs is morally equivalent to outright piracy. In fact, it's a bloody
irresponsible thing to say, especially in -this- newsgroup.
(Yes, now I'm getting angry.)
Eric VanHeest
> How do you feel about rentals?
Ah... that was really just a rhetorical question; I don't see them as
any different than automatic buying and selling back of used copies.
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why video rental places exist while
audio rental places don't (or if they do, they are rare enough that I
haven't noticed them). What's the difference between audio and video
in this regard?
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why video rental places exist while
>audio rental places don't (or if they do, they are rare enough that I
>haven't noticed them).
They do exist, in Japan, but simply as a cover for making copies.
>What's the difference between audio and video in this regard?
People usually watch a movie only or twice, but they collect music to
listen to whenever they want.
Eric VanHeest
> People usually watch a movie only or twice, but they collect music to
> listen to whenever they want.
... yet people frequently sell used audio.
Eric VanHeest
> Tell me, would you abolish flea markets? Would you abolish garage sales?
> Would you abolish classified ads? If not, why not? Selling some old dishes
> is no different than selling some used CDs, not in the real world.
I already told you that I see entertainment media as being very
different from other objects. Because you (or the law) don't see it
that way means absolutely nothing to me from a moral standpoint.
> I'm pressing the issue because while it's fine for you personally to
> refuse to buy used CDs, it is NOT fine for you to state that buying used
> CDs is morally equivalent to outright piracy.
Why not? People discuss moral issues constantly; they're just usually
a bit more globally controversial than my own. I understand that you
don't feel the same way I do, but that doesn't make you right and me
wrong. I never said that there was any kind of "moral absolute" that
gave me supreme power to claim that the purchasing of used
entertainment is the equivalent of piracy. I only mentioned that I
thought it was wrong. I'll always feel that way; whether you get angry
about it or not makes no difference.
> In fact, it's a bloody irresponsible thing to say, especially in
> -this- newsgroup.
But it's okay for you to dictate morality to me in the opposite
direction? I didn't mention anything except how I personally feel on
the matter initially (and explained myself when asked afterwards).
I'm hardly wandering over to rec.arts.anime.marketplace and saying
"You're all going to HELL!" (Which I don't believe, anyway; I don't
see morals as being anything other than relative guides.)
From my point of view, you're basically telling me, "See, everyone else
is doing it, so why can't you see that it's fine?" -- which has no
relevant moral meaning. I'm sure you can think of plenty of things
that a lot of people do that aren't "right" in your book ... what
would your feelings be if they decided to tell you that your moral
feelings on the issue were invalid for reasons that basically equate
to "majority rule?" Really, what I say about used CDs shouldn't bother
you at all if you think I'm simply a crackpot.
(Of course, if my moral choices are affecting your rights, that's a
different situation, but you don't really have the right to not be
offended by the things I say. I'm not stopping anyone from buying used
CDs, unless by my words someone is realizing that they actually agree
with me.)
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I already told you that I see entertainment media as being very
>different from other objects.
Why? What is qualitatively different between sitting on a chair and
listening to a CD? A carpenter built the chair. A musician recorded the
CD. I receive some benefit from sitting on the chair. I receive some
benefit from listening to the CD. When I'm done sitting on the chair, I
can transfer possession of it to another person and no longer receive
benefit from it. When I'm done listening to the CD, I can transfer
possession of it to another person and no longer receive benefit from it.
What is the qualitative difference here?
>Because you (or the law) don't see it that way means absolutely nothing
>to me from a moral standpoint.
That is a textbook description of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).
In particular, the persistent disregard of social norms and the
equivocation of acceptable behavior (buying used CDs) with unacceptable
behavior (pirating CDs).
Morals developed in a cultural vacuum are not morals at. They are simply
outbursts of pure ego. As long as you are intereacting with other human
beings, you must have -some- appreciation of why they behave the way they
do. Merely keeping your head down and obeying the laws because you feel
you have to is not enough.
For example, you still buy CDs only because the law tells you that you
must. You rip the music off the CD then throw the CD away. You do not know
or care why the CD itself exists.
I have tried to explain first sale doctrine to you and I have asked you to
explain your position to me. Your responses have been basically "don't
care" and "just 'cuz," respectively. Doesn't that seem even a little
strange to you? It sure gives me the willies...
>Why not? People discuss moral issues constantly; they're just usually
>a bit more globally controversial than my own. I understand that you
>don't feel the same way I do, but that doesn't make you right and me
>wrong.
Except that I've got the community standards and a hundred years of legal
precedent on my side, plus the basic mechanics of property that underlie
first sale doctrine. All you've got is some fairy-tale world of the future
where all of reality is made up of perfect ones and zeroes.
Yes indeed, at some point there IS a right and a wrong.
>I never said that there was any kind of "moral absolute" that
>gave me supreme power to claim that the purchasing of used
>entertainment is the equivalent of piracy.
Quote: "If I really wanted a piece of music, and my only recourse
was the used market, I would be just as likely to pirate it, since
it's stealing either way to me. In fact, I would probably feel worse
about buying it used, since that would be -financially- supporting
something I don't believe is 'right.'"
>But it's okay for you to dictate morality to me in the opposite
>direction? I didn't mention anything except how I personally feel on
>the matter initially (and explained myself when asked afterwards).
What you're saying is irresponsible because a) it contradicts the
established message of the community here on rec.arts.anime.music and
b) it contradicts the law, specifically first sale doctrine.
Buying used CDs is still considered acceptable behavior, regardless of
what you personally feel, and it is encouraged instead of piracy as a
means of acquiring out of print CDs. For you to stomp around proclaiming
the exact opposite is not bloody helpful, especially if you are as
concerned about piracy as you claim to be.
>(Which I don't believe, anyway; I don't see morals as being anything
>other than relative guides.)
Then they're not morals.
>From my point of view, you're basically telling me, "See, everyone else
>is doing it, so why can't you see that it's fine?" -- which has no
>relevant moral meaning.
So I was right way back at the beginning of this thread -- everything I've
said about first sale doctrine went in one ear and right out the other.
Joshua Kaufman
I imagine it's mainly not economiacally feasible for the most part.
Also, there's a much greater division on what people would listen to --
some people listen to ONLY jazz or ONLY classical or ONLY rock, etc,
which people who watch movie are much more likely to enjoy a variety of
genres (this is my observation mind you).
The other thing, is that audio tends to be a personal thing -- unless
it's in the car or at a party, or as pure ambience, music is almost
always something one listens to alone. With movies, very often two or
more people (families, friends, etc) will enjoy them together.
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon ICQ: 5404138
Joshua Kaufman
That has no baring. I have had many CDs where I used to like them but
don't any more. Also, especially witnh classical, there's the issue
where you might replace recording, or get a remaster, etc etc
Eric VanHeest
> What is the qualitative difference here?
There is obviously nothing I can say to convince you that I feel some
sort of difference. I will not yield that my feelings are "wrong" just
because I cannot explain them.
> That is a textbook description of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).
I simply don't believe that everything society does is necessarily
"right." It is useful to follow the guidelines established by society,
but not absolutely necessary when making personal decisions about
right and wrong that don't affect anyone else's rights. My position
can't possibly affect you in any way other than to simply annoy you. I
wish it didn't, but I'm not going to change just because it does.
> Morals developed in a cultural vacuum are not morals at. They are simply
> outbursts of pure ego. As long as you are intereacting with other human
> beings, you must have -some- appreciation of why they behave the way they
> do.
I have an appreciation of the fact that all humans think differently.
You say it's one thing for me to "not buy used CDs" but another to
explain why I don't. It sounds like you are saying that just because
it's the way things are done, it's the right thing to do. Is anything
the majority of any society accepts necessarily "right" ? It seems to
me that you think so.
> Merely keeping your head down and obeying the laws because you feel
> you have to is not enough.
It is okay for me to follow my personal morals (refuse to buy used
CDs), but not to discuss them, especially when asked to do so?
> For example, you still buy CDs only because the law tells you that you
> must. You rip the music off the CD then throw the CD away. You do not know
> or care why the CD itself exists.
If I can purchase a song in "pure digital" form via download (as is
currently being offered in a few cases), or pay the same price for it in
CD form, then there -is no purpose- to the piece of plastic except as
a convenient storage medium. Why do you insinuate that I -need- to
find value in it just because the rest of society does?
I like to travel to different places and experience different things.
I don't like to collect "souvenirs" of the journey. A lot of people
do, but I know there are more people than just myself who think that
physical souvenirs are just useless rubbish. Are the people who think
that way "wrong" just because a lot of members of society place some
sort of value on the trinkets? That's exactly how I feel about CDs. I
see you (and a lot of others) as people who place the same sort of
bizarre value on the physical data storage items as people do with
souvenirs as "storage" for their memories of the journey. I don't need
those items, and it saddens me that you seem to believe that I should.
> I have tried to explain first sale doctrine to you and I have asked you to
> explain your position to me. Your responses have been basically "don't
> care" and "just 'cuz," respectively. Doesn't that seem even a little
> strange to you? It sure gives me the willies...
I "don't care" that you think that I'm wrong, no; I've explained why.
I feel the way I do "just 'cuz," yes, since I have no particular way
to allow you to feel what I feel. I feel the need to defend myself when
challenged, yes, but I can't defend my feelings in a way you understand
since you don't think I can legitimately have this relative personal
judgement, so yes, it's basically "just because" that's how I feel on
the issue.
> Except that I've got the community standards and a hundred years of legal
> precedent on my side, plus the basic mechanics of property that underlie
> first sale doctrine.
"First sale doctrine" is an artifact of our copyright law. Do you think
that people who believe that our entire copyright system is ridiculously
arbitrary and needs chaning should not speak their minds, also? Or
does "a hundred years of legal precedent" mean that anything written
in that law is, by definition, morally right and should never under
any circumstances be challenged?
> Yes indeed, at some point there IS a right and a wrong.
Who are you to say where that point is? Is everything society accepts
right? If not, then how can you say which aspects are right and which
are not?
>>I never said that there was any kind of "moral absolute" that
>>gave me supreme power to claim that the purchasing of used
>>entertainment is the equivalent of piracy.
> Quote: "If I really wanted a piece of music, and my only recourse
> was the used market, I would be just as likely to pirate it, since
> it's stealing either way to me. In fact, I would probably feel worse
> about buying it used, since that would be -financially- supporting
> something I don't believe is 'right.'"
So "voting with my wallet" with respect to my personal principles is
some kind of supreme power? Funny, it sounded like a personal decision
to me. Yes, I do have supreme power to decide for myself that I
consider wrong. I never claimed to have any power to decide for you
what is right, unlike what you're saying to me.
> What you're saying is irresponsible because a) it contradicts the
> established message of the community here on rec.arts.anime.music and
> b) it contradicts the law, specifically first sale doctrine.
Ah, of course, nobody should ever say anything contradictory to the
established norm; that might offend people. I wasn't aware that this
was a totalitarian newsgroup.
It's not irresponsible to mention that you think a particular law is
ill-conceived. It's only offensive to people who don't think the same
way.
> Then they're not morals.
So there are absolute morals, then? Who is to say what they are? Not
you alone, I know that much. I refuse to accept that just because the
law states something that is must be a moral absolute. I don't think
anything dictated "by society" can be an absolute, because what
society finds acceptable changes constantly. Or are you saying the
what society finds acceptable -is- the "moral absolute," and that if
enough members of society decide to accept something different, then
you should immediately throw away all of your feelings on the issue
and go with the new "right and wrong" that the majority has declared?
> So I was right way back at the beginning of this thread -- everything I've
> said about first sale doctrine went in one ear and right out the other.
"See, the copyright law says it's okay, so it's 'right'" is just as
useless of a declaraion as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing
magical about copyright law that gives it a supreme moral authority in
this situation.
Eric VanHeest
just to suit me. I think that laws should reflect what the majority of
society considers to be right and wrong; otherwise society will likely
simply break the laws and cause problems due to lack of consistency
(society is by definition moderately consistent in its behavior, if not
its thinking). Given this, obeying the law is the best course of
action because it means you will have far less of a chance of
interfering with another person's rights.
However, I don't believe that I should force myself to -think- that the
laws are based on a morally perfect society. I don't believe our
society is morally perfect, so by my above reasoning (as to the purpose
of laws) I can't believe that the laws are morally perfect. Thus any
declaration of absolute right and wrong that is -solely- based on what
is legal or what society accepts in general (which are equivalent as
far as I'm concerned) ... is completely bogus, since societal patterns
of acceptance (and hence their laws) can and do change, whereas I
believe that an "absolutely correct" moral can by definition not change
no matter what society thinks.
I make no pretense of believing I can claim to have supreme knowledge of
the "correct" moral attitude towards these actions, but I do make the
claim that nobody else can, either.
sanjian
Other, longer lived, isotopes can be used past that point, but they aren't
quite as useful, as they're not at equalibrium in living organisms. I have
seen some theories to suggest that C-14 simply wasn't as abundant a few
thousand years ago, as it is now (no, I can't find them, so I'm not offering
them as evidence, only as a side note), making the initial concentration
assumption invalid.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why video rental places exist while
>audio rental places don't (or if they do, they are rare enough that I
>haven't noticed them). What's the difference between audio and video
>in this regard?
One of the differences is that audio has historically been more
portable than video. Even with DVD footprints being the same
as CDs, video is still less portable because you need a visual
display, which means at least a hundred-fold more output footprint.
That wasn't always the case: 45's were about the smallest package
before tape cassette came out, and they sure weren't portable.
Furthermore, we can listen to music while doing other things
(e.g. jogging, working) whereas with videos you typically tie up
two essential senses (eyes and ears) that we need to get things
done.
That's how radio stations managed to flourish (in some sense,
you could consider radio as a form of music rental, where
the "rent" is from advertising revenues made possible by our
purchases). And it was the existence of radio stations that
negated the awkwardness of 45's and LPs. With the advent of
the transistor (1950's? for sure in the 1960's), anyone could
listen to the radio whereever they were (with the inevitable
confiscation by a teacher). You didn't even need to own media,
so there was no way audio rental would work. That means that
audio has been prevalent in daily life for a long time, whereas
video has been relegated to free time which is not always ample.
Owning audio media probably manifested significantly (apart from
cost drops) because of the portability issue and people's desire
to listen to what they wanted to, when they wanted to, rather
than by the dictates of a program manager.
The combination of portability, frequency of usage, and time
investment means that folks are less interested in OWNING video
than owning audio. With audio repeated playback is a given,
video is much more transient. As a result, audio is a "buy"
item, whereas video is a "rent" item.
Those are some reasons audio and video are so differentiated
by consumers.
ru
--
Maintainer of the "Welcome to REC.ARTS.ANIME.MUSIC" FAQ
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/rec/arts/anime/music
and the Annual rec.arts.anime.* "What are we like?" survey
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Used audio media historically tended to be more durable than
video: tapes usually self destruct before the user wants to
sell them. With DVDs, we'll probably start seeing an even
proportionality with audio, with respect to the amount of
each owned. I don't think there will ever be the same amount
of used video on sale as used audio, but I expect it by
proportion, and would be unsurprised if it surpassed audio by
proportion.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:47:04 -0000, mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden)
>wrote:
>>Here's a hint, though: human civilization got along just fine for 6,000+
>>years before the invention of corporations and shopping malls.
>Only 6k? I thought it was around 100 to 200 million. ^_^
He did say "civilization". But how long has the barter system been
around. Not in the 100 million year range, but I suspect it was
around before civilization. That probably doesn't go much further
than 100k (if even that).
Eric VanHeest
> Those are some reasons audio and video are so differentiated
> by consumers.
Those sound like pretty good reasons. I like to go to the theater and
watch videos, but I don't generally like to go to concerts to listen
to audio.
I also know a lot of people who buy DVDs for what appears to be no
discernable reason. Sometimes they don't even bother taking them out
of the shrinkwrapping. And even though they have DVDs they've never
watched, they still buy more of them.
My roommate is that way with PC games, actually, which makes even less
sense, because after as little as three weeks the games are often much
cheaper ($30 instead of $50 is not uncommon at all), and he will still
have the unopened copy he bought for $50 the day it came out.
That can't be the drive to "collect" things; that has to be a drive just
to "buy" things.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
[deletia]
As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
It's become so infuriatingly common on Usenet that I think it deserves
it's own axiom, like Godwin's Law.
You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs. All the moral bullshit aside,
you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109. So shut
the hell up already.
Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
Later, folks.
Rob Kelk
>
> In article <ael92k$6aq$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
> Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
> As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
> moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
> you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
>
> It's become so infuriatingly common on Usenet that I think it deserves
> it's own axiom, like Godwin's Law.
You're the one who identified the phenomenon, so I guess we should call
it Hayden's Law.
> You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
> don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
> piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs. All the moral bullshit aside,
> you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109. So shut
> the hell up already.
The Canadian equivalent is R.S. 1985, c. C-42, should anyone care.
> Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
> Later, folks.
Have fun, but don't be gone for too long!
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Eric VanHeest
> You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
> don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
> piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs.
You are taking it to mean that, but I have explained that I did not
intend it that way. I find both equally wrong, personally. That's all.
There's nothing more to it, and I don't advocate piracy at all. If
someone asked me whether it was legal to buy used CDs, I would say yes.
If someone asks me why I won't do it myself (which you very specifically
did), then I will explain myself.
My personal morals on this matter can not affect you unless you are
intrinsically bothered by the fact that I think it's wrong when you
buy used media. If you think I'm just spouting bullshit, then why do
you care -at all- what I'm saying? Why would you even ask for an
explanation (repeatedly) once you've already determined that my
position is invalid (which you apparently did as soon as I made my
first response)? Did you think I was going to reconsider my entire
way of thinking and say "Oh, well, now that you mention it, I guess
there's really nothing wrong with it?"
> All the moral bullshit aside, you are LEGALLY wrong. United States
> Code, Title 17, Section 109. So shut the hell up already.
If you just wanted to argue legality, you should have just said so in
the first place, and I wouldn't have bothered answering the question
(because I don't care), and you could have apparently saved yourself a
lot of grief. Don't ask if you don't want to hear the answer.
However, if you want to continue yelling at me, I'll continue defending.
Eric VanHeest
> What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't
> prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
I may claim you are wrong in my eyes, but also that I can provide no
proof of such that you would accept. However, you claim that I am
wrong in your eyes, and also that you -need not- prove it using
methods I would accept (presumably because society happens to agree
with you).
Chibi-Light
wrote:
>
>Other, longer lived, isotopes can be used past that point, but they aren't
>quite as useful, as they're not at equalibrium in living organisms. I have
>seen some theories to suggest that C-14 simply wasn't as abundant a few
>thousand years ago, as it is now (no, I can't find them, so I'm not offering
>them as evidence, only as a side note), making the initial concentration
>assumption invalid.
apparently there's little statistical curves you can plot the data
into to correct for the variation in C-14. I forget the technical
name for them off the top of my head and lets hope I don't have to
remember them for my test in my archeology of the southwest class
tomorrow. ^_^
CL
Apple
Hi, everybody!
mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <ael92k$6aq$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
> Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
> As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
> moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
> you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
Yes, I agree -- it's very sad to see you copping out like that. Oops!
I forgot that you proved that you were right by stomping your foot,
shaking your fist, and screaming, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!"
Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you no doubt would have said
the exact same thing in regard to being able to legally own other
human beings as slaves, being able to legally batter your wife and
children for displeasing you, being able to legally burn your
neighbors to death for practicing "witchcraft", etcetera. Why does
your One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality (TM) have a tendency to
turn 180 degrees like that? Why do you use a debating tactic known as
Argument from Authority, which is a known logical fallacy?
> It's become so infuriatingly common on Usenet that I think it deserves
> it's own axiom, like Godwin's Law.
Mm-hm. There should be a name for the incredible phenomenon of people
disagreeing with some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be
treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality
(TM). "Hayden's Law" it is! ^_^ Remember to invoke it, y'all, the
next time you're talking to a guy who insists that there is objective
right and wrong and that "objective" standard just so happens to be
comprised of all *his* opinions.
> You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
> don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
> piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs.
The only difference between downloading mp3s of out-of-print CDs and
buying used out-of-print CDs is that doing the latter means adding
insult to non-injury by giving money to someone who had nothing to do
with the production of the music. I say non-injury because once a
disc is no longer commercially available, you can't say that the
artist is being hurt by people not buying the disc... because it can't
be bought anymore through the distribution chain that pays the artist.
Please do tell me how someone downloading mp3s from CDs that went out
of production 10+ years ago affects you.
> All the moral bullshit aside,
Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth of yours?
> you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109.
Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
> So shut the hell up already.
... Wow. What an impressive display of maturity and intelligence.
And you dare to accuse others of being antisocial misfits when you
slither around, muttering things like the above comment to Eric, who
has been nothing but polite and civil to you throughout this whole
discussion? HA! Physician, HEAL THYSELF.
> Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
> Later, folks.
Whatever you say, brave Sir Robin. Perhaps it *is* best for you to go
away until your temper tantrum subsides, hm? Please don't forget to
answer my questions once you've managed to regain control of yourself.
-Apple-
Rob Kelk
<26f85b71.0206...@posting.google.com>:
>
> :springs from lurkerdom:
>
> Hi, everybody!
>
> mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <ael92k$6aq$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
> > Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
> >
> > [deletia]
> >
> > As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
> > moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
> > you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
>
> Yes, I agree -- it's very sad to see you copping out like that. Oops!
> I forgot that you proved that you were right by stomping your foot,
> shaking your fist, and screaming, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!"
You do know that you're replying to Mr. Hayden, not Mr. VanHeest, don't
you?
> Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you no doubt would have said
> the exact same thing in regard to being able to legally own other
> human beings as slaves, being able to legally batter your wife and
> children for displeasing you, being able to legally burn your
> neighbors to death for practicing "witchcraft", etcetera. Why does
> your One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality (TM) have a tendency to
> turn 180 degrees like that? Why do you use a debating tactic known as
> Argument from Authority, which is a known logical fallacy?
And why do you use the known logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack?
> > It's become so infuriatingly common on Usenet that I think it deserves
> > it's own axiom, like Godwin's Law.
>
> Mm-hm. There should be a name for the incredible phenomenon of people
> disagreeing with some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be
> treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality
> (TM). "Hayden's Law" it is! ^_^
Named after the person in this thread who actually *did* disagree with
some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be treated as tenets
of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality, yes. (Just because
you seem to agree with Mr. VanHeest's bald assertion that his opinions
should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective
Morality doesn't make his statements any less of a bald assertion that
his opinions should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute
Objective Morality.)
> Remember to invoke it, y'all, the
> next time you're talking to a guy who insists that there is objective
> right and wrong and that "objective" standard just so happens to be
> comprised of all *his* opinions.
Such as your own post?
> > You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
> > don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
> > piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs.
>
> The only difference between downloading mp3s of out-of-print CDs and
> buying used out-of-print CDs is that doing the latter means adding
> insult to non-injury by giving money to someone who had nothing to do
> with the production of the music. I say non-injury because once a
> disc is no longer commercially available, you can't say that the
> artist is being hurt by people not buying the disc... because it can't
> be bought anymore through the distribution chain that pays the artist.
> Please do tell me how someone downloading mp3s from CDs that went out
> of production 10+ years ago affects you.
How does it affect _me_? Here's a brief list, off the top of my head:
* It uses up Internet bandwitdh that I could have been using for a
legal purpose.
* It requires hiring additional law-enforcement agents, whose salaries
I pay through my taxes, to investigate complaints about music priacy.
* People who download non-CD-quality MP3s sometimes play them where I
can hear them, subjecting me to poor audio.
Yes, that last reason is pretty flimsy. It is, however, less flimsy
than the "because I said so" justification that has been presented for
downloading MP3s.
More time on the 'net, more money paid in taxes, an assault on my
ears... It looks like this affects me in quite a few ways.
> > All the moral bullshit aside,
>
> Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth of yours?
>
> > you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109.
>
> Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
> to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
> I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
Another ad hominen attack, using an irrelevancy.
Since you obviously think ad hominen attacks are useful debating
techniques, I'll say here that I believe only someone without the
courage of his convictions would hide behind a pseudo-anonymous posting
service and an obviously false name in order to attack the moral
position of a long-standing regular of this newsgroup.
> > So shut the hell up already.
>
> ... Wow. What an impressive display of maturity and intelligence.
> And you dare to accuse others of being antisocial misfits when you
> slither around, muttering things like the above comment to Eric, who
> has been nothing but polite and civil to you throughout this whole
> discussion?
Perhaps you missed reading Mr. VanHeest's words to Mr. Hayden in
<news:ael78d$4dv$1...@og1.olagrande.net>.
> HA! Physician, HEAL THYSELF.
>
> > Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
> > Later, folks.
>
> Whatever you say, brave Sir Robin. Perhaps it *is* best for you to go
> away until your temper tantrum subsides, hm? Please don't forget to
> answer my questions once you've managed to regain control of yourself.
>
> -Apple-
I believe that Mr. Hayden is taking a few days off because he's grown
weary of stating the same arguements, many times per week, to an
unending parade of selfish immature people who can't see why they should
obey the law.
John Lee Baird
[snip]
> Named after the person in this thread who actually *did* disagree with
> some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be treated as tenets
> of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality, yes. (Just because
> you seem to agree with Mr. VanHeest's bald assertion that his opinions
> should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective
> Morality doesn't make his statements any less of a bald assertion that
> his opinions should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute
> Objective Morality.)
And where did Mr. VanHeest say that his views should be adopted as the One
True Holy Absoluter Objective Morality? I distinctly remember reading his
statement that such a thing was known neither to him nor Hayden, a
decidedly agnostic point of view (where an agnostic is someone who says "I
don't know and it's not possible for me to know" when asked if there's a
God or some kind of absolute Truth).
[snip]
> > > you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109.
> >
> > Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
> > to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
> > I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
>
> Another ad hominen attack, using an irrelevancy.
It does serve as a useful example that bolsters one of Mr. VanHeest's
points: laws change, as does society's defintions of acceptable behavior.
To base a moral code only on what society says is like building a house on
sand: it shifts continually. Truth, using Buddha's definition, does not
change, and because laws change, they are not sources of Truth. Laws are
reflections of what the majority of people feel is right. Whether the law
_is_ right is a completely different matter. Several million people
can be wrong, after all.
VanHeest is saying that he follows a moral code of his own devising that
treats both piracy and buying used CDs as wrong. Hayden is saying that
his personal moral code defines buying used CDs as okay.
Neither VanHeest nor Hayden are wrong in their personal views, they simply
have different perceptions of the Truth. And as VanHeest correctly pointed
out, Truth is not completely knowable (that's where opinions and faith
come in). The problem stems from the fact that Hayden is attacking
VanHeest's stance by pointing to the law and saying that is the end all,
be all determinant of Truth, which is false.
[snip]
> I believe that Mr. Hayden is taking a few days off because he's grown
> weary of stating the same arguements, many times per week, to an
> unending parade of selfish immature people who can't see why they should
> obey the law.
...Except that VanHeest isn't saying he doesn't obey the law. In fact,
both him and Hayden agree that piracy is wrong! VanHeest is stating his
moral position, which happens to hold that something the law says is okay
is wrong. Last time I checked, there was nothing wrong with choosing not
to do certain things even though the law says its all right. It's similar
to Pro-Life supporters who don't get abortions, even though its legal to
do so.
To sum it up: what we have here are two people with different perspectives
trying to explain to the other why they believe what they do. One
issue, though, is that Hayden continually cites the law as being
the reason he thinks buying used CDs are okay, even though the law is a
poor guide for morality (it's a good place to start, but it shouldn't be
all you use).
What I wonder is if the law was changed banning the buying and sale of
used CDs, would Hayden break the law by contuing to do so or would he
obey the law?
At the other end, if the laws were changed such that any and all kinds of
MP3 distribution were made legal, would Hayden still protest it or
endorse it?
The above questions would determine whether Hayden's positions are
dictated by the ever changing tides of social mores or rooted in his own
personal system. VanHeest has already shown himself to have a moral code
of the latter sort.
What would make this argument even more interesting would be to have
someone who believes in piracy argue their perspective against both Hayden
and VanHeest. Though I imagine that person would be ripped apart
mightily, as there are few good justifications for not obeying the law
(and as far as I know, none of them apply to MP3 trading).
> --
> Rob Kelk Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
> Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
PS. Hayden, VanHeest: if you disagree with my summaries, feel free to
correct me. I claim no intellectual perfection. ;-)
====================================================
John Lee Baird
"Specialization is for insects." - Robert Heinlein
====================================================
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
>The only difference between downloading mp3s of out-of-print CDs and
>buying used out-of-print CDs is that doing the latter means adding
>insult to non-injury by giving money to someone who had nothing to do
>with the production of the music. I say non-injury because once a
>disc is no longer commercially available, you can't say that the
>artist is being hurt by people not buying the disc... because it can't
>be bought anymore through the distribution chain that pays the artist.
> Please do tell me how someone downloading mp3s from CDs that went out
>of production 10+ years ago affects you.
Well, there may be some consideration for OOP titles that actually
could get a re-release. That seems to be happening to some fan
favourites. Furthermore, it is definitely happening if you consider
the North American re-releases that are building up now, thanks to
ADV and tRSI (AnimeTrax). Piracy may dilute the market, and any
license that goes through definitely goes back to the rightholders.
That is, OOP now, does not mean OOP forever.
Another approach to the issue is to look at the replica market.
For items that are out of production, or are unique, there is a
way to legally acquire replicas of these items. It requires
getting a license or similar, and it satisfies the demand for
some version of the item. It's really no different for CDs.
That is, there isn't an automatic need for pirating when a CD
goes out of print.
However, either way, it takes time, and sometimes never bears
fruit. Frankly, I see no justification in the OOP arguement for
piracy. It can have consequences, and there are other avenues.
It requires patience and discipline, behaviour patterns that are
needed to counter our base instincts. But then, that's what
being civilized is about.
Michael Hayden
>However, either way, it takes time, and sometimes never bears
>fruit. Frankly, I see no justification in the OOP arguement for
>piracy. It can have consequences, and there are other avenues.
>It requires patience and discipline, behaviour patterns that are
>needed to counter our base instincts. But then, that's what
>being civilized is about.
Hear, hear.
Apple
> Apple <apple_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <26f85b71.0206...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > :springs from lurkerdom:
> >
> > Hi, everybody!
> >
> > mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <ael92k$6aq$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
> > > Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [deletia]
> > >
> > > As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
> > > moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
> > > you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
> >
> > Yes, I agree -- it's very sad to see you copping out like that. Oops!
> > I forgot that you proved that you were right by stomping your foot,
> > shaking your fist, and screaming, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!"
>
> You do know that you're replying to Mr. Hayden, not Mr. VanHeest, don't
> you?
>
Why, yes I do! Mr. Hayden is the only person who stomped his feet and
screamed, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!" To Mr. VanHeest: sorry
about calling you "Eric" in my previous post -- I know it's not
terribly polite to call people by their first names unless invited to
so. -_-
> > Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you no doubt would have said
> > the exact same thing in regard to being able to legally own other
> > human beings as slaves, being able to legally batter your wife and
> > children for displeasing you, being able to legally burn your
> > neighbors to death for practicing "witchcraft", etcetera. Why does
> > your One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality (TM) have a tendency to
> > turn 180 degrees like that? Why do you use a debating tactic known as
> > Argument from Authority, which is a known logical fallacy?
>
> And why do you use the known logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack?
Ooh, where to begin...? First of all, point out where I engaged in an
ad hominem. Mr. Hayden claims that the law is representative of an
objective morality that all must agree with in order to be considered
moral persons, and I simply took his argument to its logical
conclusions. If he believes that, then he believes that slave owners,
wife-beaters, and murderous fanatics were moral people. Why? Because
they were obeying the law, and the law is the final word where
morality is concerned. I repeat, point to the ad hominem.
Secondly, I see that you didn't bother to deny that Mr. Hayden is
indeed arguing from authority. Why don't you have any problem with
people using fallacies in support of what *you* happen to believe?
That certainly makes you look like quite the hypocrite, you know.
Lastly, why couldn't you answer my questions? Can't you tell me why
objective morality changes with mere public opinion? You believe that
too, right? That public consensus dictates morality? If that's your
position, then why can't you defend it? If that's not your position,
then what are you trying to say?
> > > It's become so infuriatingly common on Usenet that I think it deserves
> > > it's own axiom, like Godwin's Law.
> >
> > Mm-hm. There should be a name for the incredible phenomenon of people
> > disagreeing with some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be
> > treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality
> > (TM). "Hayden's Law" it is! ^_^
>
> Named after the person in this thread who actually *did* disagree with
> some guy's bald assertion that his opinions should be treated as tenets
> of the One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality, yes. (Just because
> you seem to agree with Mr. VanHeest's bald assertion that his opinions
> should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute Objective
> Morality doesn't make his statements any less of a bald assertion that
> his opinions should be treated as tenets of the One True Holy Absolute
> Objective Morality.)
Are you sure you've been following this conversation? Let's see...
Mr. VanHeest stated several times that he had no intention of trying
to dictate morality to others. He basically says "this is what I
believe, and here's why, and if you think differently, then that's
fine." Upon being insulted, he shrugs and pretty much says, "I think
it's too bad that you feel that way, but it's your right to do so."
Mr. Hayden, on the other hand, is the one who angrily bellows about
how anyone who disagrees with him is immoral and needs to "shut the
hell up". When he fails to prove his objective morality, he curses,
snarls a rude comment, and proceeds to show us all that he can take
his ball and go home in style. (I find it strange that you,
reasonably well-mannered as you seem, have decided to champion this
sort of behavior.)
By the way, I *don't* happen to agree with Mr. VanHeest's idea that
buying used media is inherently wrong, but, unlike Mr. Hayden, you
won't see me foaming at the mouth about it or claiming that he's
immoral for having a different opinion than mine. You should also
notice that I never claimed that Mr. Hayden was immoral for obviously
holding a different opinion than I do. That, dear sir, is the
difference between Mr. VanHeest and I, and Mr. Hayden.
> > Remember to invoke it, y'all, the
> > next time you're talking to a guy who insists that there is objective
> > right and wrong and that "objective" standard just so happens to be
> > comprised of all *his* opinions.
>
> Such as your own post?
See above.
> > > You say I shouldn't care what your personal morals are so long as they
> > > don't affect me. Well they -do- affect me when you advocate outright
> > > piracy as an equivalent to buying used CDs.
> >
> > The only difference between downloading mp3s of out-of-print CDs and
> > buying used out-of-print CDs is that doing the latter means adding
> > insult to non-injury by giving money to someone who had nothing to do
> > with the production of the music. I say non-injury because once a
> > disc is no longer commercially available, you can't say that the
> > artist is being hurt by people not buying the disc... because it can't
> > be bought anymore through the distribution chain that pays the artist.
> > Please do tell me how someone downloading mp3s from CDs that went out
> > of production 10+ years ago affects you.
>
> How does it affect _me_? Here's a brief list, off the top of my head:
> * It uses up Internet bandwitdh that I could have been using for a
> legal purpose.
> * It requires hiring additional law-enforcement agents, whose salaries
> I pay through my taxes, to investigate complaints about music priacy.
> * People who download non-CD-quality MP3s sometimes play them where I
> can hear them, subjecting me to poor audio.
>
> Yes, that last reason is pretty flimsy. It is, however, less flimsy
> than the "because I said so" justification that has been presented for
> downloading MP3s.
>
> More time on the 'net, more money paid in taxes, an assault on my
> ears... It looks like this affects me in quite a few ways.
Actually, they all look incredibly flimsy to me. Would you care to
provide some actual evidence for your assertions? Like the number of
complaints by Japanese companies about the piracy of discontinued
items like out-of-print CDs and how this affects you as an American
citizen (assuming you're an American, no disrespect intended)? I'm
not being flip; if you have evidence, I'd like to see it. It doesn't
have to be about mp3s, either; that's just one example. I'm willing
to listen to an argument that isn't full of swearing ("...bull@#!&..."
-- M. Hayden), egotistical grandstanding ("now I'm getting angry" --
M. Hayden), and utter rudeness ("shut the hell up" -- M. Hayden).
> > > All the moral bullshit aside,
> >
> > Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth of yours?
> >
Hmmm... no comment here? So I guess we at least agree that flying off
the handle and cursing at people is counter-productive to say the
least! ^_^v
> > > you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109.
> >
> > Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
> > to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
> > I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
>
> Another ad hominen attack, using an irrelevancy.
Mr. Hayden seems to consider the law to be infallible. I pointed out
that it's not simply by showing that it changed. If it were
infallible, it would never change (unless you want to claim that
absolute, objective morality changes, in which case it isn't absolute
or objective!). I challenge you to show where an ad hominem was used.
> Since you obviously think ad hominen attacks are useful debating
> techniques, I'll say here that I believe only someone without the
> courage of his convictions would hide behind a pseudo-anonymous posting
> service and an obviously false name in order to attack the moral
> position of a long-standing regular of this newsgroup.
Ah, I see. You can't answer my questions about changing objective
morality in regard to the law, so you resort to falsely accusing me of
ad hominem attacks while launching a true ad hominem attack of your
own by babbling about how I don't give out my real name on Usenet and
insinuating that I must therefore be a liar/coward/whatever. How
cute! (It's for security reasons, if you must know, and it's
"obviously false" because I'm not trying to deceive anyone, dear sir.
Would it make you feel better if I used a false name that *wasn't*
obviously false, like Samantha Miller or something?? If so, then go
ahead and call me Sam... :shrug:)
I also find it interesting that you think "long-standing regular of
this newsgroup = moral person who should not be disagreed with" (you'd
think that would be cancelled out by the fact that I agree with a
different long-standing regular...). Need I remind you that I never
claimed that Mr. Hayden was an immoral person, even though he most
likely would gleefully make just such a claim about me? (I happen to
agree with him on *some* points, but I'm sure that would not save me
from his holy, righteous wrath.)
> > > So shut the hell up already.
> >
> > ... Wow. What an impressive display of maturity and intelligence.
> > And you dare to accuse others of being antisocial misfits when you
> > slither around, muttering things like the above comment to Eric, who
> > has been nothing but polite and civil to you throughout this whole
> > discussion?
>
> Perhaps you missed reading Mr. VanHeest's words to Mr. Hayden in
> <news:ael78d$4dv$1...@og1.olagrande.net>.
Um... excuse me? Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? I see
nothing inherently inflammatory in that post, especially when compared
with the increasingly venomous attitude of Mr. Hayden. Please point
to anything Mr. VanHeest said in that post that comes anywhere near
being as impolite (to put it mildly!) as Mr. Hayden's "shut the hell
up" response.
> > HA! Physician, HEAL THYSELF.
> >
> > > Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
> > > Later, folks.
> >
> > Whatever you say, brave Sir Robin. Perhaps it *is* best for you to go
> > away until your temper tantrum subsides, hm? Please don't forget to
> > answer my questions once you've managed to regain control of yourself.
> >
> > -Apple-
>
> I believe that Mr. Hayden is taking a few days off because he's grown
> weary of stating the same arguements, many times per week, to an
> unending parade of selfish immature people who can't see why they should
> obey the law.
Another ad hominem? Tsk tsk tsk.
I believe that Mr. Hayden finally realized that his argument boils
down to this: "The law is always right, no matter what." Again, I
provided several examples where this is clearly untrue, and the only
response you offered just went to show that you don't seem to
understand what an "ad hominem" is. I ask yet again... if the law is
infallible, then why does it change? If an item can no longer be
purchased through the retail chain through which original creators get
paid, what is the difference between getting the item for free and
getting it by giving money to someone who had nothing to do with the
production of said item? You can hand-wave all you like by saying
that anyone who asks these questions is a "selfish immature" person,
but it's very telling when you can't provide any real response.
-Apple-
Apple
> Apple <apple_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> >The only difference between downloading mp3s of out-of-print CDs and
> >buying used out-of-print CDs is that doing the latter means adding
> >insult to non-injury by giving money to someone who had nothing to do
> >with the production of the music. I say non-injury because once a
> >disc is no longer commercially available, you can't say that the
> >artist is being hurt by people not buying the disc... because it can't
> >be bought anymore through the distribution chain that pays the artist.
> > Please do tell me how someone downloading mp3s from CDs that went out
> >of production 10+ years ago affects you.
>
> Well, there may be some consideration for OOP titles that actually
> could get a re-release.
And we have a winner!!
I was wondering when someone was going to mention reprints. ^_^
> That seems to be happening to some fan favourites.
Kitty Records regularly reprints the Urusei Yatsura discs, I think,
and King Records went nuts and reprinted a whole lot of CDs (mostly
Gundam, I think).
> Furthermore, it is definitely happening if you consider
> the North American re-releases that are building up now, thanks to
> ADV and tRSI (AnimeTrax).
Slowly but surely...
> Piracy may dilute the market,
Precisely. Regarding American releases, that is. Japanese companies
don't consider keeping Chinese bootlegs out of America to be a big
priority of any kind, so do they look at the US when deciding whether
or not to reprint a CD? Hmm. Sometimes I wonder if they know how
much money they're really losing by doing practically nothing to stop
the bootlegs from pouring in... (I have no idea -- that's why I
wonder!)
> and any license that goes through definitely goes back to the rightholders.
> That is, OOP now, does not mean OOP forever.
Certainly, and if more Japanese companies hop on the bandwagon with
Nihon Columbia concerning their R-Ban project, OOP could become a
thing of the past entirely! I really think it's only a matter of
time, but who knows?
>
> Another approach to the issue is to look at the replica market.
> For items that are out of production, or are unique, there is a
> way to legally acquire replicas of these items. It requires
> getting a license or similar, and it satisfies the demand for
> some version of the item. It's really no different for CDs.
> That is, there isn't an automatic need for pirating when a CD
> goes out of print.
Huh? Are you talking about a different means for American companies
to reprint Japanese CDs...?
> However, either way, it takes time, and sometimes never bears
> fruit.
Yes... you generally shouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reprint
of something that wasn't popular. There are exceptions, of course. A
bunch of old Victor discs were reprinted a while ago in a big "Twin
Series" collection, and most of that stuff was pretty obscure.
> Frankly, I see no justification in the OOP arguement for
> piracy. It can have consequences, and there are other avenues.
> It requires patience and discipline, behaviour patterns that are
> needed to counter our base instincts. But then, that's what
> being civilized is about.
>
> ru
Ah, civilization... ^_^v
-Apple-
Apple
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Rob Kelk wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > > Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
> > > to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
> > > I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
> >
> > Another ad hominen attack, using an irrelevancy.
>
> It does serve as a useful example that bolsters one of Mr. VanHeest's
> points: laws change, as does society's defintions of acceptable behavior.
> To base a moral code only on what society says is like building a house on
> sand: it shifts continually. Truth, using Buddha's definition, does not
> change, and because laws change, they are not sources of Truth. Laws are
> reflections of what the majority of people feel is right. Whether the law
> _is_ right is a completely different matter. Several million people
> can be wrong, after all.
Precisely! Well-said, Mr. Baird. I swear I'll never understand how
anyone can honestly say, "Lots of people agree with me, and that
proves I'm right!" I mean, how thoroughly ignorant of history do you
have to be to think that lots of people can't be mistaken? Sheesh.
[snip]
>
> To sum it up: what we have here are two people with different perspectives
> trying to explain to the other why they believe what they do. One
> issue, though, is that Hayden continually cites the law as being
> the reason he thinks buying used CDs are okay, even though the law is a
> poor guide for morality (it's a good place to start, but it shouldn't be
> all you use).
No kidding...
>
> What I wonder is if the law was changed banning the buying and sale of
> used CDs, would Hayden break the law by contuing to do so or would he
> obey the law?
Good question! Inquiring minds want to know.
> At the other end, if the laws were changed such that any and all kinds of
> MP3 distribution were made legal, would Hayden still protest it or
> endorse it?
I suspect that he'd have no problem with it if it were legalized.
>
> The above questions would determine whether Hayden's positions are
> dictated by the ever changing tides of social mores or rooted in his own
> personal system. VanHeest has already shown himself to have a moral code
> of the latter sort.
>
> What would make this argument even more interesting would be to have
> someone who believes in piracy argue their perspective against both Hayden
> and VanHeest.
Uh-huh. You go riiight ahead and do that, okay? ^_^ And while you're
at it, you might also want to put on this jumpsuit made of live
kittens and toss yourself into that pit of alligators over there.
[snip]
-Apple-
LEE YOO-JEONG
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, John Lee Baird wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> [snip "tenets of One Tru Holy Absolute Objective Morality" etc.]
> And where did Mr. VanHeest say that his views should be adopted as the One
> True Holy Absoluter Objective Morality? I distinctly remember reading his
> statement that such a thing was known neither to him nor Hayden, a
> decidedly agnostic point of view (where an agnostic is someone who says "I
> don't know and it's not possible for me to know" when asked if there's a
> God or some kind of absolute Truth).
If I may presume to add my interpretation on this argument:
From what I read, Mr. Hayden seems upset not so much at Mr. VanHeest's
personal opinion that buying used CDs is bad, but at the fact that Mr.
VanHeest seems to consider pirating CDs as *right* as buying used CDs,
i.e. pirating is okay if buying used CDs is okay
This is of course unforgivable to someone with as strong an opinion
towards pirating as Mr. Hayden.
However, this is apparently a misunderstanding, as Mr. VanHeest makes
clear that he considers both practises wrong, and does not endorse either
(and I would like to irrelevantly interject that the phrase "tenets of the
One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality" is lovely, hooray for hyperbole
and redundant adjectives)
["Truth vs. Law" snipped, as this is something that has been argued for
years and will continue on for many more years]
> [snip]
> ...Except that VanHeest isn't saying he doesn't obey the law. In fact,
> both him and Hayden agree that piracy is wrong! VanHeest is stating his
> moral position, which happens to hold that something the law says is okay
> is wrong. Last time I checked, there was nothing wrong with choosing not
> to do certain things even though the law says its all right. It's similar
> to Pro-Life supporters who don't get abortions, even though its legal to
> do so.
>
> To sum it up: what we have here are two people with different perspectives
> trying to explain to the other why they believe what they do. One
> issue, though, is that Hayden continually cites the law as being
> the reason he thinks buying used CDs are okay, even though the law is a
> poor guide for morality (it's a good place to start, but it shouldn't be
> all you use).
I think Mr. Hayden cited law to differentiate between buying used CDs and
pirating. This point got kind of lost in the anger, though. I do believe
it's wrong for Mr. Hayden to say "Your stance is morally wrong because the
law does not agree with it". It isn't even a convincing argument.
However, the problem with "The Law can't dictate my morals, I act the way
I think is right" is that it allows people to act any way they like. Thus
Mr. Hayden states that this statement is "irresponsible".
Fortunately, Mr. VanHeest does not break law in keeping true to his moral
standards, but this will not be the case for everyone.
> What I wonder is if the law was changed banning the buying and sale of
> used CDs, would Hayden break the law by contuing to do so or would he
> obey the law?
I suspect he'll obey the law... He may find the law illogical, and
complain (perhaps sign petitions to fight it) but still obey the law while
it is implemented
> At the other end, if the laws were changed such that any and all kinds of
> MP3 distribution were made legal, would Hayden still protest it or
> endorse it?
Hmm...
> The above questions would determine whether Hayden's positions are
> dictated by the ever changing tides of social mores or rooted in his own
> personal system. VanHeest has already shown himself to have a moral code
> of the latter sort.
I personally did not find Mr. VanHeest's arguments offensive, just a
little unusual... I was especially blown away by his professed lack of
attachment to material things
> What would make this argument even more interesting would be to have
> someone who believes in piracy argue their perspective against both Hayden
> and VanHeest. Though I imagine that person would be ripped apart
> mightily, as there are few good justifications for not obeying the law
> (and as far as I know, none of them apply to MP3 trading).
-_-;
> PS. Hayden, VanHeest: if you disagree with my summaries, feel free to
> correct me. I claim no intellectual perfection. ;-)
ditto for me
YJL
Eric VanHeest
> I was especially blown away by his professed lack of attachment to
> material things
To be more specific, it's the lack of attachment of value to objects
by sole virtue of the information they carry (or "memories they
carry" in the case of other things I've mentioned). I find the value
of a book to be only in the story or information contained therein,
not in the binding. If I could easily turn books into text documents
that I could access and read wherever I was without needing to carry
around the paper, I would do it in a heartbeat (unfortunately that's
not accomplished with nearly the speed and convenience of creating
audio and video files at the moment, since those are already in a
transportable digital format).
I am most certainly not the "Zen master" or anything of the sort,
needing nothing physical, nor am I trying to be; if you took my PCs
(or anything needed to operate them) away, I would be very unhappy.
Michael Hayden
LEE YOO-JEONG <le...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>I think Mr. Hayden cited law to differentiate between buying used CDs and
>pirating. This point got kind of lost in the anger, though.
You got it. Rob got it. Ru got it. I don't think it was lost at all.
>I do believe it's wrong for Mr. Hayden to say "Your stance is morally
>wrong because the law does not agree with it". It isn't even a
>convincing argument.
Of course it isn't convincing, and it isn't what I said. I -tried- to
challenge Eric's position on its own merits (e.g., "What is the value of a
CD? Can that value be transfered to another person?"), but he nullified
the entire discussion by claiming moral relativism.
I kept citing the law simply to point out that Eric was being
irresponsible to publicly advocate piracy as an equivalent to buying used
CDs. We have a lot of lurkers on this newsgroup, and a statement like that
borders on incitement.
And yes, I still believe that is what Eric was advocating. He never really
gave a straight answer either way when challenged, and the various
interjections and asides he's posted in the past make it hard to believe
otherwise.
(Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was leaving this flame war, but I hate it
when people put words in my mouth. So long as we're flaming about real
issues, I'm game. I just won't waste my time trying to parse someone's
bullshit moral relativism.)
Eric VanHeest
> And yes, I still believe that is what Eric was advocating. He never really
> gave a straight answer either way when challenged
What part of my statement "I find both equally wrong, personally.
That's all. There's nothing more to it, and I don't advocate piracy
at all." did not count as a straight answer?
My very first statement was simply that I thought attitudes like "well,
it's out of print, so you're SOL" were likely to convince people to
pirate the songs instead of getting them legally, (especially if you
don't consider the used market to be any better than the pirate
"market," which is what prompted the rest of the argument). There is
little better way to encourage a lot of people to get something any
way they can than to say "You can't have it." (Obviously, -everybody-
can't find a used copy; that's obvious, which is why I believe it would
encourage people to consider piracy).
Talking about piracy and engaging in speculation about the reasons
behind the activity are not equivalent to advocating it, not in my mind
at least. Saying I would be more likely to pirate than buy used was
not a clever choice of words on my part; for that particular statement I
apologize. I was attempting to explain how little regard I had for
paying somone for their used media by comparing it to paying someone
for pirated media (because it is a generally accepted "wrong"), but in
hindsight it does look inflammatory, since the people who find it
"right" to buy used media would not understand my comparison, and
would only be offended by it. I apologize for being unable to
properly predict the response of people who didn't share my moral
mindset.
As to the folks who think that following your own morals necessarily
means you would ignore the law if you thought it convenient, that's a
huge stretch. It's not a good idea to disobey the law if you want to
live in a society, but I don't see any problems with:
- Speaking out against the law (even on this newsgroup, where it's
apparently "irresponsible"), whether that law makes something illegal
that you think should be legal, or makes something legal that you think
shouldn't be.
- Deciding for yourself that something legal is not moral
- Deciding for yourself that something illegal is not immoral
- Explaining your principles to others (even if they are -not- legal)
Breaking the law in favor of your own morality is not a good idea,
because it can lead to criminal punishment, but there's no moral
difference between doing something (that another person finds offensive)
that happens to also involve breaking the law, and doing something that
another person finds offensive that happens to be within the bounds of
the law, except that the offended person can report you for breaking the
law in the former case (and will probably gleefully do so), whereas they
have no legal recourse in the latter scenario, and will simply end up
getting very angry.
Although, it's getting to the point (has been for many years now)
where you -can- essentially report someone simply for offending you,
which is a very disturbing societal trend.
Someone said that selling used CDs was "okay" because once you sold your
copy, you couldn't get any more enjoyment out of it. Someone else (I
don't recall if it was the same person) mentioned that movies and audio
CDs were different (to the point where renting one is common, but
renting the other is almost an unheard activity) because you "typically
only watched a movie once." Yet used movie sales are just as legal as
used audio sales, even though you presumably (from the comments)
wouldn't watch the movie multiple times. How do you reconcile the
difference between buying a movie from someone that has already seen
it (assuming people tend to watch a movie only once or twice) versus
paying for a new copy?
> and the various interjections and asides he's posted in the past
> make it hard to believe otherwise.
I change my opinions on some things from time to time, if that's what
you're trying to imply, yes. I do also fall prey to one-line
reactionary statements that I would not have said were I to spend time
thinking about it beforehand. I welcome challenges to statements I've
said either recently or anywhere in the far past. If you take years'
worth of statements and compare them simultaneously, you are bound to
find some apparent hypocrisy, but made hasty mistakes I may have made
with my words in the past don't sweepingly invalidate my current ideals.
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<3D0F77EB...@deadspam.com>...
> > Apple <apple_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > <26f85b71.0206...@posting.google.com>:
> > >
> > > :springs from lurkerdom:
> > >
> > > Hi, everybody!
> > >
> > > mha...@rawbw.com (Michael Hayden) wrote in message news:<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > In article <ael92k$6aq$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
> > > > Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [deletia]
> > > >
> > > > As I feared, this has degenerated into yet another bullshit flamewar about
> > > > moral relativism. What a massive cop-out -- "I can't prove I'm right, but
> > > > you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree -- it's very sad to see you copping out like that. Oops!
> > > I forgot that you proved that you were right by stomping your foot,
> > > shaking your fist, and screaming, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!"
> >
> > You do know that you're replying to Mr. Hayden, not Mr. VanHeest, don't
> > you?
> >
>
> Why, yes I do! Mr. Hayden is the only person who stomped his feet and
> screamed, "The law agrees with ME, so nyah!" To Mr. VanHeest: sorry
> about calling you "Eric" in my previous post -- I know it's not
> terribly polite to call people by their first names unless invited to
> so. -_-
The behaviours of Mr. Hayden and Mr. VanHeese were remarkably similar
during the majority of this thread. I'll concede the part about Mr.
VanHeest not citing the law, but the remainder of the description you
gave could be applied equally truly to either participant for the
majority of the thread.
> > > Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you no doubt would have said
> > > the exact same thing in regard to being able to legally own other
> > > human beings as slaves, being able to legally batter your wife and
> > > children for displeasing you, being able to legally burn your
> > > neighbors to death for practicing "witchcraft", etcetera. Why does
> > > your One True Holy Absolute Objective Morality (TM) have a tendency to
> > > turn 180 degrees like that? Why do you use a debating tactic known as
> > > Argument from Authority, which is a known logical fallacy?
> >
> > And why do you use the known logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack?
>
> Ooh, where to begin...? First of all, point out where I engaged in an
> ad hominem.
I'll emphasize while re-quoting you:
> > > Had YOU lived a few hundred years ago, YOU NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE said
That indicates an ad hominen attack to me.
> Mr. Hayden claims that the law is representative of an
> objective morality that all must agree with in order to be considered
> moral persons,
Cite, please.
> and I simply took his argument to its logical
> conclusions. If he believes that, then he believes that slave owners,
> wife-beaters, and murderous fanatics were moral people. Why? Because
> they were obeying the law, and the law is the final word where
> morality is concerned.
That's a big "If". I'll have to read whatever post of Mr. Hayden's you
cite before commenting on this.
> I repeat, point to the ad hominem.
See above.
> Secondly, I see that you didn't bother to deny that Mr. Hayden is
> indeed arguing from authority. Why don't you have any problem with
> people using fallacies in support of what *you* happen to believe?
> That certainly makes you look like quite the hypocrite, you know.
Did I say that I did or did not have such a problem? Provide a cite,
please.
> Lastly, why couldn't you answer my questions?
I didn't see any questions; all I saw was a rant. However, now that
you've asked some questions:
> Can't you tell me why
> objective morality changes with mere public opinion? You believe that
> too, right? That public consensus dictates morality? If that's your
> position, then why can't you defend it? If that's not your position,
> then what are you trying to say?
Why should I attempt to defend an axiom?
You appear to have the term "morals" confused with the term "ethics".
While these words are similar, they are not synonymous. The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, has no
separate definition for "morals", instead defining "moral" as
"Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior". The
same dictionary defines "ethics" as "The study of the general nature of
morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person". The
requirement to conform to standards is an indication that the standards
are imposed from without, i.e. by society and public opinion. This
requirement is present in the definition of "moral", but is absent in
the definition of "ethics".
I have not attempted to champion such behaviour; I merely offered an
explaination for it.
> By the way, I *don't* happen to agree with Mr. VanHeest's idea that
> buying used media is inherently wrong, but, unlike Mr. Hayden, you
> won't see me foaming at the mouth about it or claiming that he's
> immoral for having a different opinion than mine. You should also
> notice that I never claimed that Mr. Hayden was immoral for obviously
> holding a different opinion than I do. That, dear sir, is the
> difference between Mr. VanHeest and I, and Mr. Hayden.
As I mentioned above, morals are defined by common consensus, while
ethics are defined personally. I will grant that you have not attempted
to claim Mr. Hayden has been acting unethically.
> > > Remember to invoke it, y'all, the
> > > next time you're talking to a guy who insists that there is objective
> > > right and wrong and that "objective" standard just so happens to be
> > > comprised of all *his* opinions.
> >
> > Such as your own post?
>
> See above.
I saw nothing in your earlier post that allowed for the possibility that
you could be incorrect, hence my comment.
I do not have such evidence firsthand, no. All I have are secondhand
reports that such evidence exists.
(Oh, and I'm a Canadian citizen. No disrespect assumed; considering how
similar the two cultures are, it's an understandable confusion.)
> > > > All the moral bullshit aside,
> > >
> > > Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth of yours?
> > >
>
> Hmmm... no comment here? So I guess we at least agree that flying off
> the handle and cursing at people is counter-productive to say the
> least! ^_^v
Agreed; that's why I didn't comment.
> > > > you are LEGALLY wrong. United States Code, Title 17, Section 109.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and it was once "LEGALLY wrong" for women and non-white people
> > > to vote, so I'm assuming that your point is that laws can be wrong.
> > > I'm glad that you've figured that out! ^_^v
> >
> > Another ad hominen attack, using an irrelevancy.
>
> Mr. Hayden seems to consider the law to be infallible. I pointed out
> that it's not simply by showing that it changed. If it were
> infallible, it would never change (unless you want to claim that
> absolute, objective morality changes, in which case it isn't absolute
> or objective!). I challenge you to show where an ad hominem was used.
If you'll change "morality" to "system of ethics", I'll grant you this
point. I apologize for calling it an ad hominen attack.
> > Since you obviously think ad hominen attacks are useful debating
> > techniques, I'll say here that I believe only someone without the
> > courage of his convictions would hide behind a pseudo-anonymous posting
> > service and an obviously false name in order to attack the moral
> > position of a long-standing regular of this newsgroup.
>
> Ah, I see. You can't answer my questions about changing objective
> morality in regard to the law,
As I've already implied, thre is no such thing as "objective morality".
> so you resort to falsely accusing me of
> ad hominem attacks while launching a true ad hominem attack of your
> own by babbling about how I don't give out my real name on Usenet and
> insinuating that I must therefore be a liar/coward/whatever. How
> cute! (It's for security reasons, if you must know, and it's
> "obviously false" because I'm not trying to deceive anyone, dear sir.
> Would it make you feel better if I used a false name that *wasn't*
> obviously false, like Samantha Miller or something?? If so, then go
> ahead and call me Sam... :shrug:)
I am aware of the Anonymous Fallacy [1], thank you. If you're worried
about computer security, might I suggest installing a firewall [2] and
subscribing to the Realtime Blackhole List [3]?
[1]: <http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/fallacy.html>
[2]: <http://www.pricelessware.org/2002/pricelesswaresecurity.htm>,
scroll down to "Firewalls" - the in-page link doesn't work
[3]: <http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl/>
> I also find it interesting that you think "long-standing regular of
> this newsgroup = moral person who should not be disagreed with" (you'd
> think that would be cancelled out by the fact that I agree with a
> different long-standing regular...). Need I remind you that I never
> claimed that Mr. Hayden was an immoral person, even though he most
> likely would gleefully make just such a claim about me? (I happen to
> agree with him on *some* points, but I'm sure that would not save me
> from his holy, righteous wrath.)
>
> > > > So shut the hell up already.
> > >
> > > ... Wow. What an impressive display of maturity and intelligence.
> > > And you dare to accuse others of being antisocial misfits when you
> > > slither around, muttering things like the above comment to Eric, who
> > > has been nothing but polite and civil to you throughout this whole
> > > discussion?
> >
> > Perhaps you missed reading Mr. VanHeest's words to Mr. Hayden in
> > <news:ael78d$4dv$1...@og1.olagrande.net>.
>
> Um... excuse me? Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? I see
> nothing inherently inflammatory in that post, especially when compared
> with the increasingly venomous attitude of Mr. Hayden. Please point
> to anything Mr. VanHeest said in that post that comes anywhere near
> being as impolite (to put it mildly!) as Mr. Hayden's "shut the hell
> up" response.
Mr. VanHeese made a few statements in that post that I could see a
reasonable person might take offence to. ("Who are you to say where
that point is?" is an example of such.) It was only after that post
that Mr. Hayden became vitriolic.
> > > HA! Physician, HEAL THYSELF.
> > >
> > > > Now I'm going to sign off for a few days in order to calm down a bit.
> > > > Later, folks.
> > >
> > > Whatever you say, brave Sir Robin. Perhaps it *is* best for you to go
> > > away until your temper tantrum subsides, hm? Please don't forget to
> > > answer my questions once you've managed to regain control of yourself.
> > >
> > > -Apple-
> >
> > I believe that Mr. Hayden is taking a few days off because he's grown
> > weary of stating the same arguements, many times per week, to an
> > unending parade of selfish immature people who can't see why they should
> > obey the law.
>
> Another ad hominem? Tsk tsk tsk.
I offered an explanation for Mr. Hayden's actions, not an attack on your
position or your self. Unless you are responsible for all of the
multiple posts requesting MP3s from many different people in the last
few months (which would require you to engage in the practice known as
"sock-puppeting"), I do not see how my comment could be applied as an ad
hominen attack.
> I believe that Mr. Hayden finally realized that his argument boils
> down to this: "The law is always right, no matter what." Again, I
> provided several examples where this is clearly untrue, and the only
> response you offered just went to show that you don't seem to
> understand what an "ad hominem" is. I ask yet again... if the law is
> infallible, then why does it change?
I have never claimed infallibility of the law. You'll have to ask
someone else that question.
> If an item can no longer be
> purchased through the retail chain through which original creators get
> paid, what is the difference between getting the item for free and
> getting it by giving money to someone who had nothing to do with the
> production of said item?
The difference is a matter of ethics (not morals) on my part. However,
I will attempt to convince you that there is a difference.
First, I'll start with an assumption that the hypothetical CD in
question is not from a "bootleg" pressing. That's a separate arguement
which is covered in the newsgroup's FAQ, so I see no reason to revisit
that here.
A person who purchases a used CD from someone who purchased that CD from
the performer or the performer's agent makes a payment to a person who
previously made a payment to the performer, or his agent. This can be
seen as the person who purchases the used CD has paid the person who
sold the used CD for the service of compensating the performer for his
work, obtaining the CD, and holding it for an undetermined amount of
time. Thus, the buyer is compensating the seller for his service.
A person who purchases a used CD from someone who purchased that CD used
is compensating the seller for all of the above except for the payment
to the original performer. Thus, it is again a payment for a service.
In both of the above cases, the supplier is being paid once for one CD.
If someone obtains the CD, or the information on the CD, without making
such a payment, then the obtainer has not made payment for the services
listed above. If the obtainer gained this because the supplier made a
gift of the CD, then it is the supplier's choice to accept an emotional
benefit (i.e. the pleasure gained when giving a gift) instead of taking
a financial payment. Again, the supplier is being "paid" once for one
CD, although the "payment" is emotional satisfaction rather than a
monetary reimbursement.
However, in the case of a one-to-many copying such as making a MP3 copy
of the CD available for indiscriminate download, then the supplier is
taking multiple benefits (emotional satisfaction, monetary
reimbursement, or both) from supplying one item multiple times. This is
not the same thing as making one item available only once, and is the
crux of the difference between the two circumstances. In the case of a
one-to-one distribution (a gift or a sale), the supplier has to do
something (in this case, obtain a CD) each time he wants to gain the
benefit of supplying it to someone. In the case of a one-to-many
distribution, the supplier does not have do do anything after the first
obtainer has been supplied.
Have I succeeded in convincing anyone that there's a difference between
buying a used CD and downloading a collection of MP3 tracks?
> You can hand-wave all you like by saying
> that anyone who asks these questions is a "selfish immature" person,
> but it's very telling when you can't provide any real response.
I am not saying that someone who asks questions is immature; in fact, I
believe the opposite to be true. I apologize for giving such an
impression.
However, I do believe that anyone who expects the protection of the law
(e.g. the protection to not be murdered, raped, or mugged), but flouts
his responsibility to obey the law in order to realize a personal gain,
is a selfish immature person.
Eric VanHeest
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> Edition, has no separate definition for "morals", instead defining
> "moral" as "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in
> behavior". The requirement to conform to standards is an indication
> that the standards are imposed from without, i.e. by society and
> public opinion.
No, it is not. You are making a large assumption when you say they
must "be imposed from without." I dispute the idea that there is no
such thing as a "personal standard," which you seem to be implying. I
believe the dictionary intentionally makes no specification as to
whether it means personal or societal standards, because it can mean
either. As is typical, this tends to make the "dictionary definition"
of something not particularly useful as the basis for an argument.
As a point of fact, many dictionaries specifically have both
"sanctioned by or operative on one's [own] conscience or ethical
judgment" as well as your "conformity to established sanctioned codes or
accepted notions of right and wrong" as alternative definitions (again
making the dictionary itself a useless reference; context and intended
meaning by the writer become much more relevant).
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>What part of my statement "I find both equally wrong, personally.
>That's all. There's nothing more to it, and I don't advocate piracy
>at all." did not count as a straight answer?
Okay, then, I'm satisfied. End of flame war.
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> > Edition, has no separate definition for "morals", instead defining
> > "moral" as "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in
> > behavior". The requirement to conform to standards is an indication
> > that the standards are imposed from without, i.e. by society and
> > public opinion.
>
> No, it is not. You are making a large assumption when you say they
> must "be imposed from without." I dispute the idea that there is no
> such thing as a "personal standard," which you seem to be implying.
I implied no such thing. In fact, the only way to create such an
implication is by quoting out of context, by completely dropping
sentences without indicating that you are doing so.
I will re-post the complete paragraph that you partially posted above,
to show the context that you attempted to remove:
> > You appear to have the term "morals" confused with the term "ethics".
> > While these words are similar, they are not synonymous. The American
> > Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, has no
> > separate definition for "morals", instead defining "moral" as
> > "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior". The
> > same dictionary defines "ethics" as "The study of the general nature of
> > morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person". The
> > requirement to conform to standards is an indication that the standards
> > are imposed from without, i.e. by society and public opinion. This
> > requirement is present in the definition of "moral", but is absent in
> > the definition of "ethics".
You completely removed my mention of ethics, without indicating that you
did so. Not only is this IMHO unethical, it is also immoral.
> I
> believe the dictionary intentionally makes no specification as to
> whether it means personal or societal standards, because it can mean
> either. As is typical, this tends to make the "dictionary definition"
> of something not particularly useful as the basis for an argument.
>
> As a point of fact, many dictionaries specifically have both
> "sanctioned by or operative on one's [own] conscience or ethical
> judgment" as well as your "conformity to established sanctioned codes or
> accepted notions of right and wrong" as alternative definitions (again
> making the dictionary itself a useless reference; context and intended
> meaning by the writer become much more relevant).
Which is exactly why you should not destroy such context in your
replies. Please do not do so again.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> I was especially blown away by his professed lack of attachment to
>> material things
>To be more specific, it's the lack of attachment of value to objects
>by sole virtue of the information they carry (or "memories they
>carry" in the case of other things I've mentioned). I find the value
>of a book to be only in the story or information contained therein,
>not in the binding. If I could easily turn books into text documents
>that I could access and read wherever I was without needing to carry
>around the paper, I would do it in a heartbeat (unfortunately that's
>not accomplished with nearly the speed and convenience of creating
>audio and video files at the moment, since those are already in a
>transportable digital format).
Well, rarity aside, it depends. Taking books as an example, the
artwork, even the craftsmanship in making the book can have a
significant worth above that of the text. That requires that the
collector be at least partly interested in the process of making
books. Sometimes the book has historical significance, requiring
the collector to be partly historian in nature.
Similar can be said about folks who attach value to CD media.
Beyond the value of the music, the CD has artwork, a layout, a
package and a particular choice of selections and order. Regarding
the latter, it can sometimes be said that the choices are
reflections of the thoughts of the creators and producers, and at
least have historical significance if not a piece of the creators.
Many a recording artist themselves attribute a quality to an
album as a whole in addition to the songs on their own, and
often are considered by the buyers. These are added values,
some as intangible as the value of the music on the CD.
Setting those kinds of arguments aside, taking the hypothetical
situation that music is delivered on featureless CDs, it isn't
so much that the CD medium that matters, rather that the act of
copying matters. The basic idea is that the creator has the
last say in the reproduction of his creation (distribution is
basically out of his hands, though some nations attribute some
degree of control of even that). If he deems that a fixed number
of CDs will be printed, that is the total number of copies that
should be floating around in the world. Reselling the CD,
i.e. reselling the copy of the music, requires no copying thus
is not objectionable in that framework. On the otherhand,
piracy does involve increasing the number of copies floating
around, and that contradicts the creator's intention of limited
copies. More generally, it's not so much limiting the number
of copies that matters, as much as just having a say in when
a copy can be made.
Note:
This concept is one of the 6 basic rights of artists recognized
by the authors of the Berne treaty as early as 1928 (I haven't
found the original 1886 text), to authorize: integrity, paternity,
translation, *reproduction*, public performance, and adaptation.
In the commercial environment, it certainly would be beneficial
for the company to say reselling is not allowed so that anyone
wanting a CD would have to buy a new one. But when balanced
against property rights, in this case the CD medium, such a
sanction wouldn't be accepted. That being the case, reselling
the CD medium must be acceptable. However, the music on the
CD is not considered the property of the person who own the CD
and thus is subject current notions of the rights of distribution
of artistic works. Right now, distribution is not generally
considered a basic right, though locally there may be limited
rights of this sort given (e.g. illegality of distributing
illegal copies). Even if it was, there is an ambiguity with
respect to at least property rights, where there is significantly
less ambiguity with piracy. So reselling is secondary to the
piracy issue in the commercial standpoint, too.
Eric VanHeest
> I implied no such thing. In fact, the only way to create such an
> implication is by quoting out of context, by completely dropping
> sentences without indicating that you are doing so.
I didn't see the ethical context as relevant, and that was -precisely-
the reason I omitted it to make my point. You seem to indicate that
since "ethics" includes "the study of ... the specific moral choices
to be made by a person" (which is the part I dropped, because I found it
irrelevant) that "morals" necessarily means external standards. I
disagree. The definition of morals needs to stand on its own or it is
useless as a definition.
I submit that one can make personal moral choices (either the
decisions as to what is moral and what is not, or the decision to act
upon that knowledge or not in particular circumstances) without having
the standards necessarily externally imposed. As such, ethics (as the
study of those choices) do not determine where the standards used by the
person(s) studied originated (they are studied, not dictated).
> You completely removed my mention of ethics, without indicating that you
> did so. Not only is this IMHO unethical, it is also immoral.
You failed to explain why the definition of ethics necessarily implies
that the standards for morality -must be- external. Not only is this
IMHO obnoxious, it is also pointless.
> Which is exactly why you should not destroy such context in your
> replies. Please do not do so again.
Which is exactly why you should not simply re-post a statement that is
being challenged and expect it to stand on its own, where it did not
originally. Please do not do so again.
Eric VanHeest
> These are added values, some as intangible as the value of the music
> on the CD.
I understand that a lot of people have this mindset; I simply don't
agree with it. I am not required to find value in those things.
> Setting those kinds of arguments aside, taking the hypothetical
> situation that music is delivered on featureless CDs, it isn't
> so much that the CD medium that matters, rather that the act of
> copying matters.
Raising the question: Is it a "copy" under your definitions if the
original is destroyed in the process? If I take the featureless disc
and use it to create featureless files on a computer, then remove the
disc from distribution (either literally destroying it or simply making
it unavailable to anyone), nothing has changed. Assuming I place zero
value on anything CD-related except the audio data, this is the same for
non-featureless discs.
> If he deems that a fixed number of CDs will be printed, that is the
> total number of copies that should be floating around in the world.
Unless they are destroyed (whether the information is copied beforehand
or not).
> More generally, it's not so much limiting the number of copies that
> matters, as much as just having a say in when a copy can be made.
I find it incredibly obnoxious that an artist (or whoever is granted
that power) can arbitrarily limit the number of discs printed. I do
think it is conducive to piracy, regardless of the fact that piracy is
illegal (or considered wrong). The only reason for limiting the
production of an intrinsically cost-free (or trivially minimal,
depending on the methods of distribution; a music file distributed via
the internet has virtually no cost associated with it if it isn't
purchased, and the bandwidth required to download it when it is
purchased would be part of the price of the song) piece of media is to
artificially increase the value of that media. This is common and
even supported by many people, and I find it detestable (as is
probably obvious from my prior comments on the issue).
I'm not particularly a member of the "music (or information) should be
free" group, but I am definitely in the "it should be available"
group. Intentionally limiting access to the media (used copies are
also limited) is not acceptable behavior as far as I'm concerned (call
it my personal ethics, or morality, or whatever you want; that's what I
mean by it).
> So reselling is secondary to the piracy issue in the commercial
> standpoint, too.
Piracy is secondary to murder, but that doesn't make one right and one
wrong.
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > I implied no such thing. In fact, the only way to create such an
> > implication is by quoting out of context, by completely dropping
> > sentences without indicating that you are doing so.
>
> I didn't see the ethical context as relevant, and that was -precisely-
> the reason I omitted it to make my point.
The ethical context is of the utmost relevance to the discussion, as it
makes clear that ethics and morals are not identical.
> You seem to indicate that
> since "ethics" includes "the study of ... the specific moral choices
> to be made by a person" (which is the part I dropped, because I found it
> irrelevant) that "morals" necessarily means external standards. I
> disagree. The definition of morals needs to stand on its own or it is
> useless as a definition.
How does the definition that I offered fail to stand on its own?
> I submit that one can make personal moral choices (either the
> decisions as to what is moral and what is not, or the decision to act
> upon that knowledge or not in particular circumstances) without having
> the standards necessarily externally imposed.
I counter-submit that such choices are ethical choices, not moral
choices. My reasoning behind this has already been offered in a
previous post.
> As such, ethics (as the
> study of those choices) do not determine where the standards used by the
> person(s) studied originated (they are studied, not dictated).
While this statement is true, I believe that it is also irrelevant to
the current debate.
> > You completely removed my mention of ethics, without indicating that you
> > did so. Not only is this IMHO unethical, it is also immoral.
>
> You failed to explain why the definition of ethics necessarily implies
> that the standards for morality -must be- external. Not only is this
> IMHO obnoxious, it is also pointless.
Since ethics are "specific moral choices to be made by a person", it is
counterproductive to define morals as anything other than choices made
by someone other than the person, i.e. external. Otherwise, why have
two different words?
Also, the definitions of "standards" (discounting definitions that apply
to flags, coins, flowers, and such) are "An acknowledged measure of
comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion." and
"Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized
or employed, especially because of its excellence." One cannot
acknowledge a measure or widely recognize a practice without that
measure or practice being public.
> > Which is exactly why you should not destroy such context in your
> > replies. Please do not do so again.
>
> Which is exactly why you should not simply re-post a statement that is
> being challenged and expect it to stand on its own, where it did not
> originally. Please do not do so again.
Your "challenge" was based on an apparently-purposeful out-of-context
re-quoting of portions of my statement. Not only is this IMHO
obnoxious, it is also pointless. Re-posting was necessary to
re-establish context.
You appear to insist on combining the definitions of "morals" and
"ethics". I desire to keep the two terms separate, and have offered the
dictionary definitions as reference points for this discussion. As long
as we cannot agree on a common set of terms, there is no point in
discussing further, as we will merely re-state the same things
repeatedly in the mistaken belief that the other person understands what
is being said.
Eric VanHeest
> One cannot acknowledge a measure or widely recognize a practice
> without that measure or practice being public.
If you don't think there can be personal standards, then I will just
have to disagree with you.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I understand that a lot of people have this mindset; I simply don't
>agree with it. I am not required to find value in those things.
It's not a question of whether -you- value it... (see below)
>Raising the question: Is it a "copy" under your definitions if the
>original is destroyed in the process? If I take the featureless disc
>and use it to create featureless files on a computer, then remove the
>disc from distribution (either literally destroying it or simply making
>it unavailable to anyone), nothing has changed. Assuming I place zero
>value on anything CD-related except the audio data, this is the same for
>non-featureless discs.
What do you do when you are called upon to prove that you own a legitimate
copy of the music? What differentiates your files from any other files
grabbed off the 'Net? Even though you personally may see it as an
anachronism, the real world still considers the CD (or DVD or book or
whatever) to be a sort of certificate of ownership, even though the
content may be stored and played back separately. That is the CD's
true value in today's society, and it is one of the concessions of fair
use. Of course things will continue to evolve, but right here right now
it's a fact of life.
(This is why I find it so hard to believe that you're not advocating
piracy. You spend one sentence -saying- you're not, then you spend the
next four PAGES describing if, when, and how it can be justified.)
Eric VanHeest
> The ethical context is of the utmost relevance to the discussion, as it
> makes clear that ethics and morals are not identical.
It seems that at their base, "morals are <x>" and "ethics are the
study of morals." The terms are also used interchangeably by a lot of
people (correctly or not).
> How does the definition that I offered fail to stand on its own?
It stands fine on its own as long as you aren't arguing that "standards"
have to be external. I have a standard for determining video quality.
It isn't anyone else's standard, but every qualitative judgement I make
about video quality is based on my personal standard. I don't see how
moral choices are any different.
> I counter-submit that such choices are ethical choices, not moral
> choices. My reasoning behind this has already been offered in a
> previous post.
I disagree with your reasoning. The study of an action (making a moral
choice) doesn't make the choice the same thing as the contemplation. I
believe you may perform ethical analysis when making a moral decision.
However, if -all- you are saying is that what I'm calling a moral
choice, you're wanting to call an ethical choice, then I'll grant you
that you can call them whatever you want (especially since "moral" and
"ethical" are listed as synonyms of each other). I will not agree
that there is some blindingly obvious and extremely important
difference between the terms that you seem to need.
>> As such, ethics (as the study of those choices) do not determine
>> where the standards used by the person(s) studied originated (they
>> are studied, not dictated).
> While this statement is true, I believe that it is also irrelevant to
> the current debate.
Neverminding that your claim is that the standards by definition
have external origins? My statement is a direct counter to that!
> Since ethics are "specific moral choices to be made by a person", it is
> counterproductive to define morals as anything other than choices made
> by someone other than the person, i.e. external. Otherwise, why have
> two different words?
Sure, a code of ethics is a specific chosen set of morals. When I say
I've made a moral decision, I'm also saying I've created a code of
ethics for myself. That doesn't have anything to do with the
standards used to create that moral set of principles ("make that
moral decision," or "create that code of ethics" - whatever terms you
want to use).
If "morals" in general are the union of "all possible ethical sets," why
do you have an issue with "personal morals" (i.e. my chosen ones) as
a synonym for "ethical choice" ? Why do you claim that these morals
must have external sources, and then cite the distinction between ethics
and morals as justification?
> You appear to insist on combining the definitions of "morals" and
> "ethics". I desire to keep the two terms separate, and have offered the
> dictionary definitions as reference points for this discussion.
I don't care about combining the definitions of morals and ethics; I
accept them as stated above; I took issue with the claim that the
standards by which your code of ethics are determined must be
external. If you really do think that a personal standard is a
contradiction in terms, then yes, there is no point in continuing to
argue.
Eric VanHeest
> What do you do when you are called upon to prove that you own a legitimate
> copy of the music? What differentiates your files from any other files
> grabbed off the 'Net?
What differentiates my actual CD from one I stole from the local music
store? Most likely, the sales receipt -- a piece of paper stating
that I purchased it. There's still no proof that the actual CD I have
is the one that the receipt claims I purchased (unless physical discs
have some sort of serial number of which I'm not aware, other than the
one that is literally identical among copies of the same CD).
What's wrong with that same receipt as proof that I own the files I
have? For that matter, why does it even matter whether I got the files
from the CD or from some other source, if I have a receipt showing that
I purchased the disc at some point? I don't think the physical CD is
any indication of anything other than that I somehow obtained the disc
(legally or not).
To play in my "fairy tale wonderland" again for a bit, I would have
zero problems with a global database of "songs Eric VanHeest has
purchased" if it were a reliable system. In fact, with such a system,
I wouldn't ever need to keep the song myself (aside from convenience);
I would be able to legally download it for playing wherever I was at
the moment.
> (This is why I find it so hard to believe that you're not advocating
> piracy. You spend one sentence -saying- you're not, then you spend the
> next four PAGES describing if, when, and how it can be justified.)
You are expending what appears to be a great deal of effort finding
reasons why I support piracy, despite any indications of such, and
additionally despite assertions to the contrary.
If you're saying that statements like "I'm not surprised piracy exists,"
"I believe such-and-so would lead to piracy," or "I think the current
laws on the issue are absurd" are justifications for theft, then I
would suggest that you perhaps draw some different conclusions,
because they aren't.
What particular statement of mine (aside from the one for which I
already apologized, which I still don't think is a "justification" for
piracy, although I can see how it is extremely misleading) is
proclaiming piracy to be justified, under any circumstance?
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>What's wrong with that same receipt as proof that I own the files I
>have? For that matter, why does it even matter whether I got the files
>from the CD or from some other source, if I have a receipt showing that
>I purchased the disc at some point? I don't think the physical CD is
>any indication of anything other than that I somehow obtained the disc
>(legally or not).
The receipt proves you own the CD. The CD proves you own the music. The
receipt does not prove you own the music unless the receipt specifically
describes the music as being in the form of computer files. By your
criteria, I could buy the CD and rip the music into MP3s, then -sell- the
CD and point to the receipt as proof that I legally own the MP3s.
Eric VanHeest
> By your criteria, I could buy the CD and rip the music into MP3s,
> then -sell- the CD and point to the receipt as proof that I legally
> own the MP3s.
... except that I think that selling the CD is wrong (guess why).
I could print up a fake receipt and point to it as proof that I bought
the CD. I could buy a Son-May CD and point to it as proof that I
bought the music.
By your criteria, it sounds like if I steal the CD, then I have proof
that I am permitted to play the music. If you want to say that both the
receipt and the CD are required, that's fine, although I disagree with
enforcing that as a requirement.
If I were put on the spot and told to provide proof of ownership of the
music files that I had, and I produced a receipt showing that I had
purchased the CD (but couldn't manage to find the CD itself), do you
think that wouldn't convince a legal authority that I had purchased
the disc? I have the feeling it wouldn't convince you personally, but
for some reason that doesn't matter as much to me.
If I sold the disc and still produced that receipt, I would be doing
something wrong, but otherwise I don't believe so.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
>> Setting those kinds of arguments aside, taking the hypothetical
>> situation that music is delivered on featureless CDs, it isn't
>> so much that the CD medium that matters, rather that the act of
>> copying matters.
>Raising the question: Is it a "copy" under your definitions if the
>original is destroyed in the process?
That depends.
>If I take the featureless disc
>and use it to create featureless files on a computer, then remove the
>disc from distribution (either literally destroying it or simply making
>it unavailable to anyone), nothing has changed.
Not true. In the time in which both the original and the copy
coexisted, the copy is indeed a copy. Subsequently destroying
the original does not change the fact that the second disc is
a copy because at some noticeable time interval both existed
to thus define the 2nd as a copy. After you destroy the original,
that's it, the total number of originals drops.
Note:
Libraries and similar specialized institutions can make a single
copy for archival purposes. However, individuals do not fall
under this category.
One way one might argue the point is if the original and the
copy instantaneously were destroyed and copied.
Regardless, this is not going to be an issue if it occurs
within the context of a single person. If it occurs between
two people, then the originator may as well have just
transfered the original copy, rather than go to the trouble
of destroying it. But apart from that, I don't see as much
of a problem if the originator does not retain a copy.
>> If he deems that a fixed number of CDs will be printed, that is the
>> total number of copies that should be floating around in the world.
>Unless they are destroyed (whether the information is copied beforehand
>or not).
Yes, in which case the number is simply an upper limit, or drops
as the number of destroyed copies increases.
>> More generally, it's not so much limiting the number of copies that
>> matters, as much as just having a say in when a copy can be made.
>I find it incredibly obnoxious that an artist (or whoever is granted
>that power) can arbitrarily limit the number of discs printed.
I hold the opposite view, that it is we who are obnoxious to
expect an artist's work to be available to us. Art is first
and foremost a very private expression. It isn't something
that is intended at the core levels to be shared. That
expression can be intended strictly for oneself alone, or
to specific individuals. However, when an artist so deems
it suitable, a piece of art might be available to more
people. Perhaps it's the ones that can most afford it, perhaps
its the ones that got their hands on it first, but regardless,
it's the artist who's on the line and he should decide if it
is worth a wider or narrower exposure.
>I do
>think it is conducive to piracy, regardless of the fact that piracy is
>illegal (or considered wrong).
Of course. But the consequences may be more palatable to the
artist this way.
>The only reason for limiting the
>production of an intrinsically cost-free (
[snip]
>) piece of media is to
>artificially increase the value of that media.
This is not necessarily true. Some media are inferior to the
original and the artist may deem that unsatisfactory. I don't
see that with CDs, but in general the statement is not true.
Within the context of anime CDs, it is also wrong, as most of
these CDs are priced no differently than other CDs. The reason
here is pretty much production cost or fear of profit loss.
Production is limited because of a lack of confidence in the
size of the market. Overproducing copies means an erosion of
the net gains. That may be corporate thinking but even at the
personal level, an artist worries about market saturation and
interest levels when they depend on their art to survive.
Anyways, after the CD goes out of print, I suspect there's no
interest by the company (even the artist) to go back, as often
the next or current project has them occupied (that certainly
is true at the personal level for many artists). Every once in
a while, some suit gets the idea to milk more money out of
something, and another edition comes out, but basically its
more a question of interest. At that point, we have no right
to get more copies, just as much as no one has the right
to make us as individuals do everything everyone wants of us.
[snip]
>> So reselling is secondary to the piracy issue in the commercial
>> standpoint, too.
>Piracy is secondary to murder, but that doesn't make one right and one
>wrong.
No, but as I stated, there are ambiguities in the reselling
issue that neither piracy nor murder have, and lean toward
reselling being acceptable (not necessarily right, but at
least acceptable).
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> What do you do when you are called upon to prove that you own a legitimate
>> copy of the music? What differentiates your files from any other files
>> grabbed off the 'Net?
>What differentiates my actual CD from one I stole from the local music
>store? Most likely, the sales receipt -- a piece of paper stating
>that I purchased it.
Yes.
>There's still no proof that the actual CD I have
>is the one that the receipt claims I purchased (unless physical discs
>have some sort of serial number of which I'm not aware, other than the
>one that is literally identical among copies of the same CD).
It doesn't really matter. What matters is if you have one
receipt and 2 CDs, and in that case at least one of the
CDs may be deemed stolen (though further evidence would be
needed to actually label it as such).
>What's wrong with that same receipt as proof that I own the files I
>have?
Not much is wrong with that, if you have the CD, too. Technically,
laws say the files are illegal under copyright laws, but there is
a lot of doubt that an individual will be cited for violation as
long as the copies remain with the CD and the individual. It's
when copies get distributed that trouble arises. The receipt was
for the disc, and if you don't have the disc, the receipt means
nothing for anything else you happen to have, including the files.
The files need their own proof of legality, say a letter from
the CD company.
>For that matter, why does it even matter whether I got the files
>from the CD or from some other source, if I have a receipt showing that
>I purchased the disc at some point?
At some point, not necessarily, concurrently, yes (with the above
proviso). As long as you have the CD at the same time as the files,
and as long as you have that receipt, you are in ok shape. If,
however, you have transferred your CD to someone else, you have
broken the chain of connections, the gap being the missing CD.
Now two people have the music, instead of just the one. But more
technically, as above, the receipt is for proof of legality of
audio on the CD and nothing else, and you need a separate proof of
legality for the files.
>I don't think the physical CD is
>any indication of anything other than that I somehow obtained the disc
>(legally or not).
That is correct. Many laws and treaties are couched in language
that is intended with this sentiment. The term "copy lawfully
made" for example is very common. While owning the disc does
not mean you have the right to do anything you want with the
contents, it does serve as the indicator that it is a "copy
lawfully made". And as long as you have that disc, you should
be ok. When you transfer that disc, you no longer have the
proof of anything "lawfully made", and might run into trouble
under certain circumstances.
Eric VanHeest
> It isn't something that is intended at the core levels to be shared.
> That expression can be intended strictly for oneself alone, or to
> specific individuals.
I feel that once an artists decides to commercialize his work at all,
he has lost that personal aspect. Of course, that's just my opinion
on the subject. I don't think it's wrong to sell your art (or keep it
to yourself), but I think it's very pretentious to arbitrarily
restrict the sale of intrinsically valueless (as I consider the
distribution media to be once made available for sale) copies.
> However, when an artist so deems it suitable, a piece of art might
> be available to more people. Perhaps it's the ones that can most
> afford it, perhaps its the ones that got their hands on it first,
> but regardless, it's the artist who's on the line and he should
> decide if it is worth a wider or narrower exposure.
I suppose I simply disagree, once the decision is made to sell it.
> This is not necessarily true. Some media are inferior to the
> original and the artist may deem that unsatisfactory. I don't
> see that with CDs, but in general the statement is not true.
I would only consider infinitely duplicatable, zero-quality-difference
copies in my opinions on retaining copyright but preventing sale (a CD
and a WAV file available via the internet both fit this category).
> Within the context of anime CDs, it is also wrong, as most of
> these CDs are priced no differently than other CDs.
For once, I was not considering price. By "artificially increase the
value" I mean the value people seem to place on having "one of a limited
number of copies" (a value I will never understand, but exists nonetheless).
> Overproducing copies means an erosion of the net gains.
This is not a problem if the copies aren't made until they are
ordered. Pressing a single CD for one person may not be financially
feasible, but allowing a WAV file download once payment is received
would be.
Another thing I personally find odious is failure to take advantage of
existing technology.
> Anyways, after the CD goes out of print, I suspect there's no
> interest by the company (even the artist) to go back, as often
> the next or current project has them occupied (that certainly
> is true at the personal level for many artists).
But they retain the copyright, so that nobody else can copy them. This
is the part I find obnoxious - if an artist has decided to no longer
make money from the work, I think (though know a lot of people disagree)
it should become public domain. I also think that making songs
available for purchase-and-download would enable artists/producers to
keep the copyright, continue collecting money when people want to buy
the songs, and have essentially zero cost if nobody wants to purchase
it.
Since that kind of technology is available right now, I find it rather
invidious on the part of the artists to fail to use it (and
undeserving of sympathy if they then complain about piracy).
> At that point, we have no right to get more copies, just as much as
> no one has the right to make us as individuals do everything
> everyone wants of us.
True, and this is why I believe it is obnoxious and backwards rather
than wrong.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>... except that I think that selling the CD is wrong (guess why).
At this point, I really don't care what you think. You're so far off in a
digital cyberfantasy that you can barely tie your own shoes. I'm talking
pure, real-world law here. A receipt by itself does not prove ownership. A
CD by itself does not prove ownership. You must have one to verify the
other. Until then, you don't own squat.
>I could print up a fake receipt and point to it as proof that I bought
>the CD.
No, it would be a fake receipt.
>I could buy a Son-May CD and point to it as proof that I bought the
>music.
No, it would be a bootleg CD.
>By your criteria, it sounds like if I steal the CD, then I have proof
>that I am permitted to play the music.
Your mind works in mysterious ways, then. I can't be much clearer than
"receipt -> CD -> music."
>If you want to say that both the receipt and the CD are required, that's
>fine, although I disagree with enforcing that as a requirement.
Tough.
>If I were put on the spot and told to provide proof of ownership of the
>music files that I had, and I produced a receipt showing that I had
>purchased the CD (but couldn't manage to find the CD itself), do you
>think that wouldn't convince a legal authority that I had purchased
>the disc?
No, it wouldn't -- and I dare you to try it.
>I have the feeling it wouldn't convince you personally, but for some
>reason that doesn't matter as much to me.
Right back at ya, pal. The law says I'm right and you're wrong, and that's
all I care about now. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time parsing
your moral relativism.
>If I sold the disc and still produced that receipt, I would be doing
>something wrong, but otherwise I don't believe so.
I'm starting to think you truly are a sociopath. I'm trying to explain the
social and legal raison d'etre of a CD, yet you keep trying to twist it
around to your personal feelings. Wow.
Eric VanHeest
> Not much is wrong with that, if you have the CD, too. Technically,
> laws say the files are illegal under copyright laws, but there is
> a lot of doubt that an individual will be cited for violation as
> long as the copies remain with the CD and the individual.
If copyright law states that you may only listen to songs from the media
on which they were distributed, then I'll just add that to my list of
why I think "technically illegal but seldom-enforced" laws are
preposterous. I respect the reasoning for a lot of laws (even ones with
which I happen to disagree), but I really do have no respect for laws
that are "designed" to be commonly broken on an individual basis, but
are then used as "yet another charge" if a person is brought up on
something else. It is my opinion that a law should be something
enforceable, or not a law at all. Such a copyright law could easily say
"illegal except for private use," which many end-user agreements do
grant (though almost begrudgingly, judging by the wording of some of
them).
I'm not a copyright expert, but my understanding is that most of this
falls under the vague (i.e. requires judgemental interpretation on a
case-by-case basis) policy of "fair use." I don't particularly like
something I'm doing to fall under a category that would need to later be
decided by a judge, but I refuse to simply live in fear of it. I've
seen insistent claims "on the internet" that copying your CDs to the PC
is "fair use," but I don't have a court case that states this one way or
the other.
> The files need their own proof of legality, say a letter from the CD
> company.
Now there's a brilliant idea. Forward-thinking, and all that. Pity
nobody seems to think this type of licensing is worthwhile for music
(it's used for software quite often, even for expensive products).
> technically, as above, the receipt is for proof of legality of
> audio on the CD and nothing else, and you need a separate proof of
> legality for the files.
So the files on a stolen CD are legal, but the CD isn't. That's
bizarre, but understandable. So currently, the only "document"
that -might- be acceptable legal proof that you may have the files is
the CD itself. I can accept that. I wish it were different. It
doesn't really change my opinions on anything.
What happens if someone steals your CD? I still own something of mine
that's been stolen (presumably).
Eric VanHeest
> I'm starting to think you truly are a sociopath. I'm trying to explain the
> social and legal raison d'etre of a CD, yet you keep trying to twist it
> around to your personal feelings. Wow.
I've already mentioned that if you want to simply discuss law, I don't
care to say anything about it. Given that, I assume that since you
continue to comment, you are interested in what I have to say on the
issues that are not of a legal nature (i.e. my personal feelings). So,
in what I must assume is no great surprise to you, that is what I
continue discussing.
If you want to do a virtual dance and keep saying "legally, you're
wrong" over and over, when I've already acknowledged that, you're
certainly welcome to do so.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I've already mentioned that if you want to simply discuss law, I don't
>care to say anything about it. Given that, I assume that since you
>continue to comment, you are interested in what I have to say on the
>issues that are not of a legal nature (i.e. my personal feelings). So,
>in what I must assume is no great surprise to you, that is what I
>continue discussing.
If we discussed the law and how it was formed, we might arrive at a common
understanding. The law grows from the social norm. The law represents
concensus and comprimise.
Unfortunately, you dismiss the law as morally irrelevant. You dismiss the
social mechanisms that underlie the law. I'm not asking to personally
agree with the law. I'm just asking you to understand why it exists. Can
you do that? Can you understand why other people put value in a CD even if
you yourself do not?
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I would only consider infinitely duplicatable, zero-quality-difference
>copies in my opinions on retaining copyright but preventing sale (a CD
>and a WAV file available via the internet both fit this category).
CDs are not infinitely duplicateable, not by any practical measure. It
costs a lot of money to manufacture and distribute CDs in volume. That's
why a finite number of CDs are produced, to maximize the return on
investment. The whims of the artists have nothing to do with, regardless
of how personally outraged you may be.
Some day we may have CDs burnt on demand at the store, or maybe even 100%
online distribution, but that day is not today. It will happen when the
record companies deem it economically, technically, and legally feasible,
and not a day sooner. Your personal feelings on the matter, above and
beyond your power as a consumer, are irrelevant.
Eric VanHeest
> Can you understand why other people put value in a CD even if you
> yourself do not?
No. I can understand that they do (and that the laws exist because of
that), but not why they do. I can understand that the laws are
necessary and useful because of the way the majority of people feel,
but I can not understand why they feel that way, no.
That part I've already mentioned before. What I'm curious about now is
how you expect me to have this magical universal empathy that would
enable me to understand why people value what they do. In point, I
can't comprehend the reason behind your insistent attacks on my ethics
unless you really do expect me to have an almost fantastic
understanding of human nature, since it is apparently not enough that
I simply accept the laws as products of society and mention my
different feelings on those issues.
Do you understand why anyone does every specific thing that they do?
How do you personally "understand" how someone else can find value in
something you see as intrinsically valueless (when apparently
simply accepting that they -do- see it differently is not sufficient)?
Eric VanHeest
> Your personal feelings on the matter, above and beyond your power as
> a consumer, are irrelevant.
Other than that most humans seem to enjoy discussing things that
they'd like created or changed. You certainly seem to enjoy arguing
with me about it to no particular "relevant" end.
Phil Lee
: Another thing I personally find odious is failure to take advantage of
: existing technology.
I can't help but de-lurk here. Let me see if I've got this straight - your
entire personal philosophy regarding the legality of recorded music is
based on the assumption that because music can be cheaply distributed
in a digital format then artists have a moral right to make sure that their
work is available in this format?
Phil
--
Phil Lee | ph...@unc.edu | monkeylair.org/phil | Let's go kicky fast, okay!
LEE YOO-JEONG
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Michael Hayden wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.10206190...@skule.ecf>,
> LEE YOO-JEONG <le...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> >I think Mr. Hayden cited law to differentiate between buying used CDs and
> >pirating. This point got kind of lost in the anger, though.
>
> You got it. Rob got it. Ru got it. I don't think it was lost at all.
It was somewhat distracting when you angrily dropped a couple of swear
words and left, leaving behind only the cite.
> >I do believe it's wrong for Mr. Hayden to say "Your stance is morally
> >wrong because the law does not agree with it". It isn't even a
> >convincing argument.
>
> Of course it isn't convincing, and it isn't what I said. I -tried- to
> challenge Eric's position on its own merits (e.g., "What is the value of a
> CD? Can that value be transfered to another person?"), but he nullified
> the entire discussion by claiming moral relativism.
<snip>
> (Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was leaving this flame war, but I hate it
> when people put words in my mouth. So long as we're flaming about real
> issues, I'm game. I just won't waste my time trying to parse someone's
> bullshit moral relativism.)
I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
And though I often start to forget what the point of this "flame war"
is, I greatly admiring Ru's ability to present a clear argument and
explanation.
And good vocabulary words popping up in everyone's posts! ^_^
YJL
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>Other than that most humans seem to enjoy discussing things that
>they'd like created or changed. You certainly seem to enjoy arguing
>with me about it to no particular "relevant" end.
Ideally, I want the same things you want, and I fully expect them to come
some time in the future...
...but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about why
things are they way they are right now, in the real world. Whether or not
you personally agree with those things is secondary; you must first
understand them if you ever hope to change them.
Unfortunately, you don't understand them. In fact, you REFUSE to
understand them. You actively work to disassociate yourself from them,
claiming an utter lack of human empathy. All that matters to you is your
own ego; whatever you believe, it must be. If anyone does otherwise, they
did it explicity to hurt you.
That is very, very disturbing. You need professional help. Seriously.
Eric VanHeest
> I can't help but de-lurk here. Let me see if I've got this straight - your
> entire personal philosophy regarding the legality of recorded music is
> based on the assumption that because music can be cheaply distributed
> in a digital format then artists have a moral right to make sure that their
> work is available in this format?
No; I try to avoid using the words "right" and "wrong" when referring
to that issue (if I have given the opposite impression, then I
apologize). It's just something I wish they would do; nothing more. (It's
a very strong desire, but not one I believe they are morally bound to do.)
Phil Lee
: Phil Lee <ph...@tribal.metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
Actually, I meant to say "moral duty" instead of "moral right", but you got
the idea.
At any rate, I'm sure we all have a very strong desire for things to be made
readily available for little or no money, but accept that, practically, this
is not likely to happen, even if it's theoretically possible. If nothing else
people are going to want to make money off the creation and distribution of
music. If that really bothers you, fine, but I hope you aren't expecting the
practice to stop anytime soon. If so, I imagine you're going to live a rather
disappointed life.
I'm curious about a couple of other things. First off, when exactly did you
come to your conclusions about the distribution of music? Was this something
that didn't bother you until you felt the technology was available to make
it possible?
Second, do you have this problem with all media? Do you belive that writers
should really be distributing everything online as a text file? Do you not
understand why anyone would want a physical copy of, say, a book or magazine?
For that matter, do you not understand why someone would want a physical copy
of a record?
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>No. I can understand that they do (and that the laws exist because of
>that), but not why they do. I can understand that the laws are
>necessary and useful because of the way the majority of people feel,
>but I can not understand why they feel that way, no.
I had another big long rant typed up to respond to this, but I've decided
I'm not going to waste any more time on you. You have no empathy. You have
no social context. And for some reason, you're damned proud of it.
Well, pal, you are a sociopath. Textbook case. Nothing by raw ego
masquerading as "personal morals." But since you don't appear to be
dangerous, I really don't care anymore. You have enough sense of
self-preservation to obey the law, even if you don't understand it why it
exists.
For what it's worth, I agree with your ideal of infinitely reproducible,
perpetually accessible digital music, and it will happen soon enough. But
it will not happen simply because you, Eric VanHeest, stamped your
little foot and declared that it should be so.
It will happen when the record companies decide it is economically,
technically, and legally feasible. You see, despite your great moral
outrage, the record companies are not in the business to entertain you.
The record companies are in the business to make money. Entertaining you
just happens to be the mechanism by which they make money.
Until such digital music does happen, CDs still have social and legal
value. If you can't grok that value, that's your problem.
In short, you cannot change a thing without first understanding it.
Trying to change it through sheer force of will only gives you a headache.
Michael Hayden
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>No; I try to avoid using the words "right" and "wrong" when referring
>to that issue (if I have given the opposite impression, then I
>apologize). It's just something I wish they would do; nothing more. (It's
>a very strong desire, but not one I believe they are morally bound to do.)
Quote: "I think it's very pretentious to arbitrarily restrict the sale of
intrinsically valueless (as I consider the distribution media to be once
made available for sale) copies."
Gee, I wonder how we got the wrong idea...
Michael Hayden
LEE YOO-JEONG <le...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>It was somewhat distracting when you angrily dropped a couple of swear
>words and left, leaving behind only the cite.
First, I may have sworn, but swear words can have meaning. "Bullshit," as
I used it, has an accepted definition of "egregious nonsense."
Second, I will not apologize for my anger. If anything, I think it's a
heck of a lot more honest than the contemptuous double-talk you see in
most flames. The underlying message was communicated well enough.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> Anyways, after the CD goes out of print, I suspect there's no
>> interest by the company (even the artist) to go back, as often
>> the next or current project has them occupied (that certainly
>> is true at the personal level for many artists).
>But they retain the copyright, so that nobody else can copy them. This
>is the part I find obnoxious - if an artist has decided to no longer
>make money from the work, I think (though know a lot of people disagree)
>it should become public domain.
That's why there is a time limit in copyright laws, because
once the artist is dead, there is not always much to say what
the artist really wants (apart from, say, a will in perpetuity).
But within that duration, the artist has the option of deciding
to re-initiate a release. This may be for artistic reasons or
it may be for income reasons. But, that degree of control
should be there while the artist is alive because it can have
immediate impact on the artist.
[snip]
>> At that point, we have no right to get more copies, just as much as
>> no one has the right to make us as individuals do everything
>> everyone wants of us.
>True, and this is why I believe it is obnoxious and backwards rather
>than wrong.
I don't see why. If we can refuse to give anything of ourselves
to the world, then I don't see why artists can't. We are the
obnoxious ones for demanding so, and anything we do get should
be considered a gift.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> Not much is wrong with that, if you have the CD, too. Technically,
>> laws say the files are illegal under copyright laws, but there is
>> a lot of doubt that an individual will be cited for violation as
>> long as the copies remain with the CD and the individual.
>If copyright law states that you may only listen to songs from the media
>on which they were distributed, then I'll just add that to my list of
>why I think "technically illegal but seldom-enforced" laws are
>preposterous.
The fact is, copyright laws are directed more at large scale
scenarios. The individual context is legally problematic.
But on the large scale, copyright laws work, and are often
enforced. The problem is in defining what is large enough.
The actions of an individual can easily blow up into a large
scale problem.
>I respect the reasoning for a lot of laws (even ones with
>which I happen to disagree), but I really do have no respect for laws
>that are "designed" to be commonly broken on an individual basis, but
>are then used as "yet another charge" if a person is brought up on
>something else. It is my opinion that a law should be something
>enforceable, or not a law at all. Such a copyright law could easily say
>"illegal except for private use," which many end-user agreements do
>grant (though almost begrudgingly, judging by the wording of some of
>them).
>I'm not a copyright expert, but my understanding is that most of this
>falls under the vague (i.e. requires judgemental interpretation on a
>case-by-case basis) policy of "fair use."
Not really. "Fair Use" has a very limited scope, and individual
use is not generally included in that. "Fair Use" is mainly for
news media and scholarship, AND it is concerned with the amount of
copied material be restricted. The term "Fair Use" is *so* misused
by many people. However, it is also true that it considers the
market effect.
I think the major reason that individual usage seems more allowable
is the interference of other rights of the individual. The market
effect in Fair Use is then used to decide which right wins out.
"Fair Use" has to be somewhat vague. In more than one hundred years,
no one has yet found clear delineation of what is "Fair Use". The
guidelines in the US Code on "Fair Use" is itself a condensation of
decades of rulings that turned out to be impossible to codify yet
were consistent. With it's 4 guidelines, it turns out to be quite
restrictive, yet there is a flexibility that comes from that vagueness.
I suspect this is not so much a loophole as a means to prevent the
law from being ridiculously restrictive, particularly at the
individual level. At the same time, I think explicit mentions
of individual's rights have been avoided because it isn't unusual
for individuals to substantively violate copyright. In that sense,
the term "private use" is no better than "Fair Use", as the
definition of private use would end up being either so cumbersome
as to be useless as law, or equally vague.
>I've
>seen insistent claims "on the internet" that copying your CDs to the PC
>is "fair use," but I don't have a court case that states this one way or
>the other.
There are cases where "space shifting" and "time shifting" were
ruled allowable (TV to VHS [Sony?], CD to car tape player [was
mentioned in the Napster ruling]). I wouldn't claim a CD to
computer copy (as an endproduct) was allowable, and less so that
it is "fair use". Note, these were not decided on an individual
basis, rather the case was brought forth and decided on the basis
of a collective effect of users of particular manufacturers'
products or services.
>> The files need their own proof of legality, say a letter from the CD
>> company.
>Now there's a brilliant idea. Forward-thinking, and all that. Pity
>nobody seems to think this type of licensing is worthwhile for music
>(it's used for software quite often, even for expensive products).
Old idea and in use for a hundred years or more. Organizations
such as ASCAP and JASRAC are there just for this purpose. And
many clubs (e.g. dance clubs) and events (e.g. Anime Expo) do just
this.
>> technically, as above, the receipt is for proof of legality of
>> audio on the CD and nothing else, and you need a separate proof of
>> legality for the files.
>So the files on a stolen CD are legal, but the CD isn't. That's
>bizarre, but understandable.
Yeah. As far as the copyright goes, the artwork and the medium
are not one and the same. Legality issues of one does not imply
the the same of the other (this is explicitly stated in US Title 17
Chapter 2, for example).
>So currently, the only "document"
>that -might- be acceptable legal proof that you may have the files is
>the CD itself. I can accept that. I wish it were different. It
>doesn't really change my opinions on anything.
>What happens if someone steals your CD? I still own something of mine
>that's been stolen (presumably).
I think you answered your question.
LEE YOO-JEONG
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Eric VanHeest wrote:
> LEE YOO-JEONG <le...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > I was especially blown away by his professed lack of attachment to
> > material things
>
> To be more specific, it's the lack of attachment of value to objects
> by sole virtue of the information they carry (or "memories they
> carry" in the case of other things I've mentioned). I find the value
> of a book to be only in the story or information contained therein,
> not in the binding. If I could easily turn books into text documents
> that I could access and read wherever I was without needing to carry
> around the paper, I would do it in a heartbeat (unfortunately that's
> not accomplished with nearly the speed and convenience of creating
> audio and video files at the moment, since those are already in a
> transportable digital format).
Although Ru had explained admirably why people attach value to CDs beyond
the music they contain, I'll add my personal little bit:
I find it unusual enough that you don't attach value to the actual CDs,
books, etc. because, well, I see the entire package as a whole, part of
the experience. If I take another example, say going to a restaurant,
it's not only the quality of the food, but the atmosphere of the
restaurant, the friendliness of the server, etc. that add to the enjoyment
of the experience.
> I am most certainly not the "Zen master" or anything of the sort,
> needing nothing physical, nor am I trying to be; if you took my PCs
> (or anything needed to operate them) away, I would be very unhappy.
I, on the other hand, would not mind all that much (as long as I don't
absolutely need it for work) althought that would be definitely
inconvenient
YJL
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Eric VanHeest wrote:
>> not in the binding. If I could easily turn books into text documents
>> that I could access and read wherever I was without needing to carry
>> around the paper, I would do it in a heartbeat (unfortunately that's
>> not accomplished with nearly the speed and convenience of creating
>> audio and video files at the moment, since those are already in a
>> transportable digital format).
As an aside, that isn't that difficult. Document scanners
these days are pretty inexpensive. Any text can be digitized
for reading on a computer. I use documents of that sort a lot.
It might be a bit more labor turning the pages and placing the
document onto the scanner, but it's not terribly so. If you
go to OCR, yeah, that's probably a fair bit more work.
Anyways...
>I'll add my personal little bit:
>I find it unusual enough that you don't attach value to the actual CDs,
>books, etc. because, well, I see the entire package as a whole, part of
>the experience. If I take another example, say going to a restaurant,
>it's not only the quality of the food, but the atmosphere of the
>restaurant, the friendliness of the server, etc. that add to the enjoyment
>of the experience.
A lot of bookworms say the same thing about books, that there's
"something" about holding the book, turning the pages, etc. I've
heard similar with CDs. As far as books go, I still prefer
hardcopy for the totally unimaginative reason that it's still a
heck of a lot easier to flip back and forth with a book (or any
multipage document) than any of the software pagers I've seen.
Anyways...
>> I am most certainly not the "Zen master" or anything of the sort,
>> needing nothing physical, nor am I trying to be; if you took my PCs
>> (or anything needed to operate them) away, I would be very unhappy.
>I, on the other hand, would not mind all that much (as long as I don't
>absolutely need it for work) althought that would be definitely
>inconvenient
That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way. Given
a choice between losing my PC and losing my CDs, I too would
rather hang onto my CDs, and it isn't only because of the
music on those shiny discs. As far as I'm concerned, the PC
can be replaced (will have to be eventually), but the CDs are
special. I hang onto my VHS and LDs, even though I have DVDs
for some of them, for similar reasons.
Apple
Sorry for the delay -- some real-life issues sprang up unexpectedly.
[snip]
>
> The behaviours of Mr. Hayden and Mr. VanHeese were remarkably similar
> during the majority of this thread. I'll concede the part about Mr.
> VanHeest not citing the law, but the remainder of the description you
> gave could be applied equally truly to either participant for the
> majority of the thread.
>
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I thought
the discussion was civil and reasonable until Mr. Hayden realized that
Mr. VanHeest wasn't going to end up agreeing with him, at which point
Mr. Hayden apparently decided to initiate his self-destruct sequence.
[snip]
> I'll emphasize while re-quoting you:
> > > > Had YOU lived a few hundred years ago, YOU NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE said
> That indicates an ad hominen attack to me.
>
I just stated the facts. If he had been around back then, thinking as
he does now (the law is the law, and that's all there is to it), he
would have supported the law just as he supports it now.
> > Mr. Hayden claims that the law is representative of an
> > objective morality that all must agree with in order to be considered
> > moral persons,
>
> Cite, please.
>
The above is what I came up with after putting Mr. Hayden's statements
together. Here we go...
- he thinks that moral relativism is BS (and so believes in some
ultimate standard of right and wrong)
(<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>)
- he thinks that the law serves as a correct standard of right and
wrong (<ugs3g2i...@corp.supernews.com>)
- he consistently uses the law as proof that he's right (and uses it
as proof that Mr. VanHeest is wrong, irresponsible, crazy, etcetera)
(<ugrr3h...@corp.supernews.com>,
<ugs3g2i...@corp.supernews.com>,
<ugsgoki...@corp.supernews.com>)
As I see it, all that adds up to the statement I made. (though
instead of "claims" I should have said "strongly implies") If you
came up with something different, I'm all ears.
[snip]
> > Secondly, I see that you didn't bother to deny that Mr. Hayden is
> > indeed arguing from authority. Why don't you have any problem with
> > people using fallacies in support of what *you* happen to believe?
> > That certainly makes you look like quite the hypocrite, you know.
>
> Did I say that I did or did not have such a problem? Provide a cite,
> please.
>
I assumed if you had a problem with it that you would have said so,
since you don't hesitate to speak up when you think *I* have made such
an error. I apologize if my assumption was incorrect.
> > Lastly, why couldn't you answer my questions?
>
> I didn't see any questions; all I saw was a rant. However, now that
> you've asked some questions:
>
> > Can't you tell me why
> > objective morality changes with mere public opinion? You believe that
> > too, right? That public consensus dictates morality? If that's your
> > position, then why can't you defend it? If that's not your position,
> > then what are you trying to say?
>
> Why should I attempt to defend an axiom?
>
> You appear to have the term "morals" confused with the term "ethics".
> While these words are similar, they are not synonymous. The American
> Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, has no
> separate definition for "morals", instead defining "moral" as
> "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior". The
> same dictionary defines "ethics" as "The study of the general nature of
> morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person". The
> requirement to conform to standards is an indication that the standards
> are imposed from without, i.e. by society and public opinion. This
> requirement is present in the definition of "moral", but is absent in
> the definition of "ethics".
>
Aaarrrgh. -_- Yes, you're right -- replace "morals" with "ethics" to
get what I really meant.
[snip]
> I have not attempted to champion such behaviour; I merely offered an
> explaination for it.
>
Well, you seemed to support his behavior with your "good job, buddy!"
type response to it.
> > By the way, I *don't* happen to agree with Mr. VanHeest's idea that
> > buying used media is inherently wrong, but, unlike Mr. Hayden, you
> > won't see me foaming at the mouth about it or claiming that he's
> > immoral for having a different opinion than mine. You should also
> > notice that I never claimed that Mr. Hayden was immoral for obviously
> > holding a different opinion than I do. That, dear sir, is the
> > difference between Mr. VanHeest and I, and Mr. Hayden.
>
> As I mentioned above, morals are defined by common consensus, while
> ethics are defined personally. I will grant that you have not attempted
> to claim Mr. Hayden has been acting unethically.
>
Precisely.
> > > > Remember to invoke it, y'all, the
> > > > next time you're talking to a guy who insists that there is objective
> > > > right and wrong and that "objective" standard just so happens to be
> > > > comprised of all *his* opinions.
> > >
> > > Such as your own post?
> >
> > See above.
>
> I saw nothing in your earlier post that allowed for the possibility that
> you could be incorrect, hence my comment.
>
:boggle:
Ahem. For the record... I know that most of what I say is my opinion,
and I most certainly do acknowledge that I could be wrong, wrong,
wrong. Better?
[snip]
> I do not have such evidence firsthand, no. All I have are secondhand
> reports that such evidence exists.
>
Secondhand being spoken hearsay?
> (Oh, and I'm a Canadian citizen. No disrespect assumed; considering how
> similar the two cultures are, it's an understandable confusion.)
>
"I see," said the blind man...
[snip]
> > Mr. Hayden seems to consider the law to be infallible. I pointed out
> > that it's not simply by showing that it changed. If it were
> > infallible, it would never change (unless you want to claim that
> > absolute, objective morality changes, in which case it isn't absolute
> > or objective!). I challenge you to show where an ad hominem was used.
>
> If you'll change "morality" to "system of ethics", I'll grant you this
> point. I apologize for calling it an ad hominen attack.
>
No problem. ^_^v "System of ethics" is what I meant.
> > > Since you obviously think ad hominen attacks are useful debating
> > > techniques, I'll say here that I believe only someone without the
> > > courage of his convictions would hide behind a pseudo-anonymous posting
> > > service and an obviously false name in order to attack the moral
> > > position of a long-standing regular of this newsgroup.
> >
> > Ah, I see. You can't answer my questions about changing objective
> > morality in regard to the law,
>
> As I've already implied, thre is no such thing as "objective morality".
>
Change "morality" to "system of ethics" and it should be correct.
[snip]
>
> I am aware of the Anonymous Fallacy [1], thank you. If you're worried
> about computer security, might I suggest installing a firewall [2] and
> subscribing to the Realtime Blackhole List [3]?
> [1]: <http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/fallacy.html>
> [2]: <http://www.pricelessware.org/2002/pricelesswaresecurity.htm>,
> scroll down to "Firewalls" - the in-page link doesn't work
> [3]: <http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl/>
>
Computer security is one of my worries, yes. Thanks for the links --
I'll look into them later. ^_^
[snip]
>
> Mr. VanHeese made a few statements in that post that I could see a
> reasonable person might take offence to. ("Who are you to say where
> that point is?" is an example of such.)
Um..... who *is* Mr. Hayden to declare himself the sole arbiter of
right and wrong for anyone other than himself? It sure seemed like
that was what he was trying to do. What would you say if I told you
in a stern, authoritative voice that there is such a thing as right
and wrong, obviously suggesting that I knew the difference between the
two and that you did not? Would you not respond with something akin
to "who do you think you are?"
> It was only after that post that Mr. Hayden became vitriolic.
>
Hardly. "...it is NOT fine for you to state that buying used CDs is
morally equivalent to outright piracy. In fact, it's a bloody
irresponsible thing to say, especially in -this- newsgroup. (Yes, now
I'm getting angry.)" (from <ugrr3h...@corp.supernews.com>). Does
Mr. Hayden own this group in some way that I'm not aware of? Just
wondering...
[snippity-doo-dah]
> > >
> > > I believe that Mr. Hayden is taking a few days off because he's grown
> > > weary of stating the same arguements, many times per week, to an
> > > unending parade of selfish immature people who can't see why they should
> > > obey the law.
> >
> > Another ad hominem? Tsk tsk tsk.
>
> I offered an explanation for Mr. Hayden's actions, not an attack on your
> position or your self. Unless you are responsible for all of the
> multiple posts requesting MP3s from many different people in the last
> few months (which would require you to engage in the practice known as
> "sock-puppeting"), I do not see how my comment could be applied as an ad
> hominen attack.
>
Silly me. I assumed that you were including me in the unending
parade. -_- And no, I be not responsible for any silly mp3 requests.
> > I believe that Mr. Hayden finally realized that his argument boils
> > down to this: "The law is always right, no matter what." Again, I
> > provided several examples where this is clearly untrue, and the only
> > response you offered just went to show that you don't seem to
> > understand what an "ad hominem" is. I ask yet again... if the law is
> > infallible, then why does it change?
>
> I have never claimed infallibility of the law. You'll have to ask
> someone else that question.
>
I'm aware that Mr. Hayden now says that he never claimed it either,
even though he continues to type variations of "just shut up and
follow the law." He may as well be saying, "No, I'm not washing my
hands. I'm just holding them under a steady stream of water while
rubbing a bar of soap between them. But I'm NOT washing them, okay?"
Same difference.
> > If an item can no longer be
> > purchased through the retail chain through which original creators get
> > paid, what is the difference between getting the item for free and
> > getting it by giving money to someone who had nothing to do with the
> > production of said item?
>
> The difference is a matter of ethics (not morals) on my part. However,
> I will attempt to convince you that there is a difference.
>
> First, I'll start with an assumption that the hypothetical CD in
> question is not from a "bootleg" pressing. That's a separate arguement
> which is covered in the newsgroup's FAQ, so I see no reason to revisit
> that here.
>
> A person who purchases a used CD from someone who purchased that CD from
> the performer or the performer's agent makes a payment to a person who
> previously made a payment to the performer, or his agent. This can be
> seen as the person who purchases the used CD has paid the person who
> sold the used CD for the service of compensating the performer for his
> work, obtaining the CD, and holding it for an undetermined amount of
> time. Thus, the buyer is compensating the seller for his service.
>
> A person who purchases a used CD from someone who purchased that CD used
> is compensating the seller for all of the above except for the payment
> to the original performer. Thus, it is again a payment for a service.
>
> In both of the above cases, the supplier is being paid once for one CD.
>
> If someone obtains the CD, or the information on the CD, without making
> such a payment, then the obtainer has not made payment for the services
> listed above. If the obtainer gained this because the supplier made a
> gift of the CD, then it is the supplier's choice to accept an emotional
> benefit (i.e. the pleasure gained when giving a gift) instead of taking
> a financial payment. Again, the supplier is being "paid" once for one
> CD, although the "payment" is emotional satisfaction rather than a
> monetary reimbursement.
>
> However, in the case of a one-to-many copying such as making a MP3 copy
> of the CD available for indiscriminate download, then the supplier is
> taking multiple benefits (emotional satisfaction, monetary
> reimbursement, or both) from supplying one item multiple times. This is
> not the same thing as making one item available only once, and is the
> crux of the difference between the two circumstances. In the case of a
> one-to-one distribution (a gift or a sale), the supplier has to do
> something (in this case, obtain a CD) each time he wants to gain the
> benefit of supplying it to someone. In the case of a one-to-many
> distribution, the supplier does not have do do anything after the first
> obtainer has been supplied.
>
>
> Have I succeeded in convincing anyone that there's a difference between
> buying a used CD and downloading a collection of MP3 tracks?
>
Hmm... Good answer!
> > You can hand-wave all you like by saying
> > that anyone who asks these questions is a "selfish immature" person,
> > but it's very telling when you can't provide any real response.
>
> I am not saying that someone who asks questions is immature; in fact, I
> believe the opposite to be true. I apologize for giving such an
> impression.
>
Okie dokie. There just seemed to be a consensus here that people who
say anything about the piracy debate other than "duuuh, mp3z BAD,
raaaargh..." are troublemakers or lawbreakers.
> However, I do believe that anyone who expects the protection of the law
> (e.g. the protection to not be murdered, raped, or mugged), but flouts
> his responsibility to obey the law in order to realize a personal gain,
> is a selfish immature person.
Yep, you've got a point there.
-Apple-