Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[Peck of Arabia]

Why? All you're really offering by way of justification is reference to Locke and Mill, but one could just as easily reference Gentile or, I dunno, Skeletor, and it's not apparent that they'd be any less valid an authority.

It's better than offering no justification other than "this is what I think and believe" like GW was. Shall I dismiss 350 years of Classical Liberalism on account of the fact it was written by people, who have names I can drop? I have a name, so does almost every fictional character ever created!

Locke, Mill, Paine, Jefferson, Bentham, Du Tocqueville and the rest were all smart guys, smarter than I am by a long way- and experts on Political theory, particularly the school of Classical Liberalism; which I should say is pretty relevant to another discussion about libertarianism. More so (I assume) than Skeletor and I don't even know who Gentile is- but if you want to use them, be my guest but I reserve the right to question their legitimacy as sources just as you have with Mill and Locke.

Using references and sources to back up arguments just seems far more constructive, and frankly interesting, than the "is not" "is too" back and forth that is the usual state of affairs.

 

[ace99]

I recall that he endorsed a Lincoln assassination.

Which is an awfully utilitarian consideration now that I think about it.

 

[Lord of Elves]

As far as I am concerned this is an equally legitimate interpretation of the history of the thirteenth amendment.

 

[ace99]

Our history textbooks must be rewritten to include it.

 

[Gucumatz]

I don't think that plagiarism is really considered "theft". You are, after all, fully entitled to use the content of another person's work, and to a certain to reproduce the work directly; the concern is one of proper attribution, not of actual possession.

If we are talking about intellectual theft - surely we can mention copyright infringement [And wait until the copyright wars begin this century with China stealing so much intellectual property and Brazil threatening to start a trade war in the past and possibly again soon over it]
===

Speaking somewhat loosely which - how many of you all steal music? I don't but I feel like I am one of the few here

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Oh, is that what tyranicide is?

 

[holy king]

i dont know, but maybe this infographic i found on google can somehow help you.

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

That's disgusting, Mr Dictator!

Shouldn't Lincoln take his hat off indoors? Has he no sense of decorum?

 

[ace99]

Oh, is that what tyranicide is?

ty·ran·ni·cide: The act of assassinating an autocratic political leader through the use of a Tyrannosaurs Rex as a weapon.

Example:

"Why did John go to Jurassic Park again?"

"Oh he's planning a tyrannicide against Lincoln."

"Badass."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrannicide

 

[Traitorfish]

It's better than offering no justification other than "this is what I think and believe" like GW was. Shall I dismiss 350 years of Classical Liberalism on account of the fact it was written by people, who have names I can drop? I have a name, so does almost every fictional character ever created!

Locke, Mill, Paine, Jefferson, Bentham, Du Tocqueville and the rest were all smart guys, smarter than I am by a long way- and experts on Political theory, particularly the school of Classical Liberalism; which I should say is pretty relevant to another discussion about libertarianism. More so (I assume) than Skeletor and I don't even know who Gentile is- but if you want to use them, be my guest but I reserve the right to question their legitimacy as sources just as you have with Mill and Locke.

Using references and sources to back up arguments just seems far more constructive, and frankly interesting, than the "is not" "is too" back and forth that is the usual state of affairs.

I don't object to referring to important thinkers, but I think that you need to refer to the content of their thought rather than simply invoke them as authorities. "X is Y, as Mill explained in Z" not just "Mill says X, therefore it's true". Otherwise it actually isn't anything more than "is not", "is too", it's just a version where we all get to show off our reading lists.

Speaking somewhat loosely which - how many of you all steal music? I don't but I feel like I am one of the few here

I steal music all the time, because I live near a good second-hand record shop. Which, if we're going to be remotely objective about this, is no more or less an act of theft than downloading it without paying for it, it merely has the weight of custom and law on its side.

 

[Traitorfish]

double post, please delete.

 

[Borachio]

How do you make that out? Good grief!

(Unless you maintain that all property is theft, of course.)

Because by that logic the original buyer of the brand new record is also a thief.

 

[Traitorfish]

If I download music without paying for it, I get the music, but the artist and label get no money.

If I buy a used record, I get the music, but the artist and label get no money.

I don't see why the fact that in the second case somebody gets paid alters the fundamental nature of the act. All it means is that I'm only stealing one thing, the music, rather than two, the music and the physical medium of delivery- something which is also true for the first case!

 

[Borachio]

If I buy a used record, I get the music, but the artist and label get no money.

This is just nonsense. (And I think you know it very well.)

The original buyer of the brand new record bought the music for which he paid the price required by the original producer of the record. There's no theft here, right?

But the rights to that record are transferrable. This means the original purchaser can dispose of the record how he sees fit. (He can't, by the way, record it on to another medium, or change the labelling etc). This includes transferring the ownership of the record to another person by sale or as a gift.

What on earth are you talking about here? It makes no sense. If it did make sense, you'd just abolish the whole second hand market in everything. This would be nuts.

So no second hand houses? No land, eh?

Now, that's all fine and dandy with me. I'm anti monetary systems in their entirety. But I don't believe you are.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If I download music without paying for it, I get the music, but the artist and label get no money.

If I buy a used record, I get the music, but the artist and label get no money.

I don't see why the fact that in the second case somebody gets paid alters the fundamental nature of the act. All it means is that I'm only stealing one thing, the music, rather than two, the music and the physical medium of delivery- something which is also true for the first case!

I guess their point is, unless the place you're downloading it from also got it for free, then the artist and label get no money. If the site owner paid for the albums or songs, and then uploaded them for free download, I don't see how that's any different from someone burning a bunch of copies of a song or album and giving them away. After all, I thought the crime was for making money off of illegal redistribution?

 

[Borachio]

I don't think that's right. It's copyright infringement they're worried about. Whether you make money or not.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Making money from it is the infringement.

 

[Borachio]

Not entirely.

Many books and publications (and other media) expressly forbid the changing of packaging, the distribution to the general public in forms other than the original without the express permission of the authors... and such like phrases. Doesn't matter whether you personally make money or not. It's the fact that you might be depriving the original producers from making further sales that they're worried about.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is just nonsense. (And I think you know it very well.)

The original buyer of the brand new record bought the music for which he paid the price required by the original producer of the record. There's no theft here, right?

But the rights to that record are transferrable. This means the original purchaser can dispose of the record how he sees fit. (He can't, by the way, record it on to another medium, or change the labelling etc). This includes transferring the ownership of the record to another person by sale or as a gift.

But that's precisely what I'm saying: the distinction is a legal one. We recognise the existence of a legal right to access certain information, and that the the holder of this right is entitled to transfer it to another. From the point of view of the producer, this changes nothing: he has still lost the same potential sale as if the consumer had downloaded it. That a previous consumer no longer gets to listen to the record is of no interest to him, any more than if the previous consumer had simply lost, broken or gotten bored of the record.

If it unethical to consume music without paying the producer of that music, then it is unethical to do so regardless of the mechanics by which I obtained the music. It doesn't matter whether I download it illegally, whether I buy it second-hand, whether I get a copy from a friend, or whether I simply overhear it coming out of somebody's car. That's all just mechanics. For the producer, it is the same.

What on earth are you talking about here? It makes no sense. If it did make sense, you'd just abolish the whole second hand market in everything. This would be nuts.

So no second hand houses? No land, eh?

You're right, that is absurd. But does the absurdity consist in my argument, or in the concept of intellectual property itself?

Now, that's all fine and dandy with me. I'm anti monetary systems in their entirety. But I don't believe you are.

No, I am, quite totally. What lead you to think otherwise?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The point being completely missed here is that the original purchaser of the music supposedly no longer has access to it once he has sold it. It is as if the new owner was the original purchaser, and he now has the right to sell it given that he no longer maintains his own copy afterwards.

If you are opposed to the copyright laws, you are essentially advocating theft of others' legitimate property. It is really no different than breaking into someone's house or car and stealing his CD.