You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] scandalous-goat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Ok, we won't come to an agreement. I'll do, however, a bit more research on the copyright length: I'll admit that I didn't put much attention into it. I do want to add that reasons why I'm against piracy and for IP are:

* I want to get paid for what I do. Since it's all so intangible, people have a hard time giving the proper compensation for it: people understand that a device has a price, but they reject costs for a software that's as useful and complex if not more;

* Our culture relies way too much on corporate output. As time moves forward, the less cultures distinguish themselves: they become more and more homogenized. We barely create anything now, we consume.

0
0

[–] Wahaha ago 

Who wouldn't want to get paid for what they do? It's just that you're still on a market place and just because you sell something, doesn't mean there's someone interested in buying. Someone being interested in using whatever you do for free doesn't change that. Piracy fundamentally doesn't change anything. People wouldn't go out and buy whatever if they couldn't pirate it. They just would do without it. And it's mostly not because they don't have the money to pay. It's just a simple service problem. But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about how copyright gives companies the right to deprive people of their culture. It's not that we rely on corporate output for culture, it's that other forms are basically illegal. You want to take some of your culture and reshape it into something new? "Cease and desist", because that part of culture is owned by corporation X and they won't have it. The whole reason copyright was originally allowed was because it was only temporary, so that we wouldn't get deprived of our culture. But then copyright got extended and extended and extended and now it lasts basically forever. The movie Dracula from 1931 is still under copyright, even though everyone involved in making it is long dead.

0
0

[–] scandalous-goat ago 

I can't agree with your definition of value. Let me say it another way.

You heard the expression "time is money". While this is right, the sense changes radically when you flip it around: money is time. Time is a limited resource and we can't get around it. Money, on the other hand, lets you buy time from others in order you use your time elsewhere. If you don't have the money, you have the time to do it yourself. If you don't have the money to buy food, you can spend time to grow your food, etc (excluding the zoning laws, of course).

The service that I offer saves a lot of time. Like I said earlier, it takes years of study and practice to master the craft. The issue is that it is intangible. Let me give you an example.

Say, you need to drill holes. You can build your own device to drill holes, you would need to learn electronics, in particular power electronics, you would need to learn engineering for the motor and gears so you get the necessary torque to drill the holes, you would need to learn metallurgy and machining to make the bits, etc. That's a lot of time! On the other hand, some companies invested time to design a drill, complete with the motor, circuitry, chuck and case so that you just need to put a power source to it, put a proper bit (that you bought, of course) so you can be done with your work and do something else. Now that company asks for a compensation for their device, say 100 bux. They actually distribute the research and engineering cost across many customer in order to make you save money so it is fair. Sure, you could say that you don't think it's worth the money and go grab one drill without paying: afaik only niggers would argue that this isn't theft.

You want to drill holes so you can make a display of some sort. Lets say, you want to poster in some sort of enclosure. Well, you need to make that poster. Thanks to computers, you can use one to make the picture, but you need software to do it. You can learn how to program a computer, learn the math and algorithms to deal with graphics, learn the data structures needed to organise the data in memory and storage, learn how to command a printer, etc. That, again, takes a lot of time. Guess what, some group of people offer exactly what you want: they sell a software that does everything that you need. They ask for about 100 bux for it, a price that amortize the time invested in the product across many customers so you don't have to pay the whole cost.

Now you can say that this isn't worth the money and take it anyway without paying: somehow this is fine because you are only taking a bit stream, there's no physical property being taken. It's not just niggers who can argue that this is fine, but a bunch of entitled people who got so much stuff for free in their lives that they don't have a concept of value anymore.

The deception of open source feeds right into this: it further devalue skilled work by using marxist rhetoric by saying that it's virtuous to share work so everybody can benefit. I'm not saying that nobody can share their stuff, hell I even share mine if I think it has little value. But sharing stuff for marxist virtue is evil, especially when it goes against your own and your people's interest.

This is why I think the article is outraging: it's saying that it "look at all those cool things that you can't have because nintendo is protecting their property". The people working on those project are just not taking the time to make their own art, to actually participate in the culture. They're freeriders that want to benefit from the success of others. Mario isn't culture, it's consumption, unless you want to promote the globohomo culture.

And yes, I disregard the copyright argument, because mario and hello kitty are of little value for any cultures. There's no story to be told, no philosophy to be learnt from them. It's pure consumerism.