Reading mode: Light Dark

Moral

Go to last post
its a little concept
linuxworks said:
called FREEDOM.
Click to expand...
O yeah freedom, THE AMERICAN FREEDOM....sigh

You are running out of gas guys, so a little political influence is needed to change the way americans think about their cars....But hey, that's WAY to much trouble so invade a country with oil (Endure Freedom My Ass) and do it that way...Is that your freedom, mate?

--
Thanks,
Rick Stolk
http://www.rickstolk.com

Caveat Mutator
 
Qship said:
its a little concept
Qship said:
called FREEDOM.
Click to expand...
O yeah freedom, THE AMERICAN FREEDOM....sigh
You are running out of gas guys
Click to expand...
you are too, I think (?).
Qship said:
, so a little political influence is
needed to change the way americans think about their cars....But
hey, that's WAY to much trouble so invade a country with oil
(Endure Freedom My Ass) and do it that way...Is that your freedom,
mate?
Click to expand...
again, do not confuse the wishes of our [mis]leaders with the actual heart of its people.

yes, MUCH of the world needs to re-visit its energy policy. but be honest - is your country (or any other, for that matter) making ANY serious headway toward alternative fuels? I'd love to hear of which country is really putting their money where their mouth is.

its a COLLECTIVE problem. we'll all have to collectively deal with it. america isn't the sole consumer of this admittedly limited fuel source. conserving, while good and noble, only 'defers the problem'. it does NOT solve it.

--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net ) pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
linuxworks said:
korsair said:
When you download a trial copy of software with the intent of
cracking it and using it for a long period or forever it is theft.
Click to expand...
and what about the company that makes claims about its software,
only to find that they lied or were misleading - yet you have no
return privs?
Click to expand...
You getting screwed by a bad product gives you no rights to break a law or local rule. Thats why we have so many lawyers and credit card disputes.
linuxworks said:
some people DO fight fire with fire. and I don't judge them for that.
Click to expand...
We are a nation of laws and when you violate a law you should be aware

that what you are doing is subject to some legal action against you. I don't judge them either unless their action affects me or my family.
linuxworks said:
btw, do you obediantly watch every tv commercial? do you block ads
on the net? by some peoples' logic, you are STEALING internet
'services' if you don't watch the ads, etc.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. I pay for my internet service and do what I want with it. Logic or opinion is beat every time by a law or local rule as on this forum.
linuxworks said:
its NOT so simple, people! morality isn't black and white - it
just isn't. EVERYTHING in life is a judgement call.
Click to expand...
Yes but judgements should be made with knowledge of what laws or local rules apply.
linuxworks said:
supposed its 3am, not a car on the road, and there's a red light
ahead. you are rushing to the hospital. do you stop at the red
light or go thru (again, no cars in sight).
Click to expand...
And be prepared to accept a traffic citation, then go to court and fight it.
linuxworks said:
we all make judgement calls. we are HUMANS not robots.
Click to expand...
I agree except there usually is a wrong or right call subject to a law or rule that we have agreed to by voting or registering or checking a box.
I am not judging here I am simply stating facts.

--
Korsair - DCO
( Digital Camera Operator)
 
linuxworks said:
again, do not confuse the wishes of our [mis]leaders with the
actual heart of its people.
Click to expand...
How true...its seems that no country's gov't really represents the will of it's people.

If folks actually saw how bound americans were with no choices, it might make them rethink our waste. It's horrible that we are so wasteful, but when you put it into the context of how the public is so manipulated and driven herd-like into consumerism, then it makes more sense. I'm not saying here that people just have no self control and buy incessantly. What I'm saying is that in the good ol US, many products don't do what they advertise, you can't find someone to fix something, or if you do, it's more expensive than replacing it with new, products are mostly plastic and therefore guaranteed to get fatigue and break in a short time...put it all together and you get people packing the store aisles. EVERYTHING is also a blinking ad nowadays...even most newpaper articles you discover are just PR reports by companies, TV, movies, or gov't agencies. Oh...and don't even get me started on real estate churn and the rampant suburbanization profiteering...not by the masses, but by local gov't individuals .

Our corporations and govt's worldwide are outta control. The actions of the people just reflect the state of governance and their limited options. Eventually, they'll all realize they've been served a bill of goods. At least I hope so.

Ceci (I really need to stop now... :) )
--
My photo gallery:
http://ceciland.smugmug.com/Photography
 
linuxworks said:
darraghuk said:
I disagree with linuxworks though about the cost of piracy.
Although it's true I haven't physically lost anything if you copy
my software, I have lost the prospect of an actual sale.
Click to expand...
maybe, maybe not. there are the set of people who would NEVER buy
  • for those, you have to remove their numbers from your equation.
Click to expand...
which is why I carefully say prospect of a sale rather than sale
linuxworks said:
there are those that will ALWAYS buy. those also don't affect your
piracy-lost-dollars. the middle ground is where the argument
really lies.

but the argument of '1000 downloads should result in 1000 sales' is
just fallacious.
Click to expand...
and isn't being made here by me. We can have a sensible discussion without setting up strawmen to knock down
linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:
Also
though the production cost to a company of a copy of our program
may be pennies, that only applies to the SECOND CD produced. The
FIRST copy may well have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to
create.
Click to expand...
business as usual. if you account that way, sure, the first of
ANYTHING is the sum total of all devel costs. ok, so the pirate
could be stealing the whole project funding if its the first cd,
but what if its the last cd, just before the product is
end-of-lifed?
Click to expand...
the price a company charges for it's software is calculate across the whole life cycle of the product which is why CD No.1 costs the same as CD No. 5,000. Factoring in theft through piracy, just like shoplifting, increases the unit price for everyone. It's not a conspiracy or spin - it's just the dismal science, economics.

darragh
FZ30 Newbie
 
aftab said:
aftab said:
--

LaRee
Click to expand...
LaRee, I think we will have a fairer world one day. Not because the
big corporations will suddenly have a change of heart, but because
they will be forced to act in a different way, may be big
corporations in its current form will not exist. But things are
likely to get worse before they get better. Will we live to see
that day? Probably not.
aftab
Click to expand...
I think you're right. Presently most individuals who work in companies seem to throw out their personal moral compass the second they cross the corporate threshold. They're in such fear of losing their jobs that they do things to other anonymous individuals that they'd never do on a personal level. Hopefully, people will remember that a company is a giant collection of people, who if they all refuse to do things they find morally corrupt, the corporation will have to change. You can't lay off everybody can you? It requires everyone cease to just accept an authority figure and regain your own conscience. A few people may be willing to do the cutthroat things, but I'd bet that it wouldn't be enough to run a company on.

Now...this being said moving a company to the next impoverished area of the world usually menas a corp gets a new workforce desperate enough for jobs that they'll sell their souls for the money. That's why many people are so adamant about equalizing economies globally and solving poverty. Yes, it's the ethical thing to do, but it could also have the consequence of making better behaving corporations.

Ceci
--
My photo gallery:
http://ceciland.smugmug.com/Photography
 
darraghuk said:
Factoring in theft through piracy, just like
shoplifting, increases the unit price for everyone. It's not a
conspiracy or spin - it's just the dismal science, economics.
Click to expand...
I just have to disagree. if I removed a cd from the shelf, that is clearly stealing. everyone agrees with that. its the first level of 'obvious'.

but the 2nd level isn't so obvious. so many people seem to be one one side or the other - there isn't a clear all-chosen view. because its not so clear, you (and everyone) should be careful to assume that an answer or standard does, in fact, exist. I argue it does not. we, as a society, are still trying to understand this new wrinkle in our current economic framework.

but copying a file is just NOT THE SAME THING as physical property theft. it just isn't. and so we need new rules and new standards and conventions for it. that's fine - its evolving (or stabilizing) on its own. give it time. but right now, there are many different views and each person has to decide for themselves where they really want to be on this position.

the obvious first example is easy. this one is of a different class. its less easy, because its new. the laws that were written in the 1700's (say) just didn't envision the notion of taking things that aren't really there.

what comes next - if one person in a fantasy game gets a fantasy item stolen, should they be able to sue for 'theft'? how 'virtual' do you wanna go in extending the notion of 'you have this without my permission' to theft and loss.

--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net ) pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
You can be sure that the price of a product (any product) in stores factors in the development costs of the product, the current need for cash of the company for ongoing development, profits to keep shareholders happy, and projected sales. Software piracy through any means cust into projected sales, thereby raising the price. By illegally downloading or copying software you are hurting others.

the argument "I would have never bought it since it's just too expensive" seems attractive on the surface, because there would be no lost sales (you can't lose a sale you would never have made in the first place). However, this also represents a fallacy. In fact, one never can know whether or not one would have bought it if it were the only way to go (i.e. no cheaper competing products and no illegal downloads). If you truly needed the product, price would be less of an issue.

I downloaded and use The Gimp because it does 90% of PSCS at 0% of the price. If the Gimp had not been available, my choice would be different.

Dorus

Dorus
linuxworks said:
darraghuk said:
Factoring in theft through piracy, just like
shoplifting, increases the unit price for everyone. It's not a
conspiracy or spin - it's just the dismal science, economics.
Click to expand...
I just have to disagree. if I removed a cd from the shelf, that is
clearly stealing. everyone agrees with that. its the first level
of 'obvious'.

but the 2nd level isn't so obvious. so many people seem to be one
one side or the other - there isn't a clear all-chosen view.
because its not so clear, you (and everyone) should be careful to
assume that an answer or standard does, in fact, exist. I argue it
does not. we, as a society, are still trying to understand this
new wrinkle in our current economic framework.

but copying a file is just NOT THE SAME THING as physical property
theft. it just isn't. and so we need new rules and new standards
and conventions for it. that's fine - its evolving (or
stabilizing) on its own. give it time. but right now, there are
many different views and each person has to decide for themselves
where they really want to be on this position.

the obvious first example is easy. this one is of a different
class. its less easy, because its new. the laws that were written
in the 1700's (say) just didn't envision the notion of taking
things that aren't really there.

what comes next - if one person in a fantasy game gets a fantasy
item stolen, should they be able to sue for 'theft'? how 'virtual'
do you wanna go in extending the notion of 'you have this without
my permission' to theft and loss.

--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net )
pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
Click to expand...
 
Qship said:
O, the 'Americans' with their double standards, trying to shove
their morals through the throat of the rest of the world...
--
Thanks,
Rick Stolk
http://www.rickstolk.com

Caveat Mutator
Click to expand...
We frequently equate policies and actions of American govt with American people. We say Americans have done this or that or they are arrogant people. Absolutely wrong. I spent about 4 years in America for my higher studies and I will forever remain indebted to 'Americans' for what I have learned and for what have become professionally. There I met some of the finest teachers and all the great people - whites, blacks, hispanics, jews.....all of them. Are people of America any different from rest of us? NO. Are they any better or worse? NO. Underneath any superficial difference we all are same people. Same emotions. Same greatness. Same frailty.
aftab

--

If you have absolutely nothing else to do, visit my gallery at http://aftab.smugmug.com
 
linuxworks said:
I just have to disagree. if I removed a CD from the shelf, that is
clearly stealing. everyone agrees with that. its the first level
of 'obvious'.
Click to expand...
(smiling) ... so share with me: if you remove the CD from the shelf, plug it into your laptop and copy the contents ... and then put the CD back on the shelf ... is that stealing?
linuxworks said:
you (and everyone) should be careful to
assume that an answer or standard does, in fact, exist. I argue it
does not. we, as a society, are still trying to understand this
new wrinkle in our current economic framework.
Click to expand...
Well, actually we have. The international version is called the "Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (Berne Convention). And in the US, USC Title 17, "Copyrights":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
(BTW: there are now also criminal sanctions for violating a copyright.)

"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it." http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Bryan, I mean no offense, ill will nor disrespect, but I don't understand your position: share with me why, taking another person's property, (stored on a CD), converting that property to your personal use, without that persons consent or permission, is anything but stealing? Does it really matter that, that person may or may not have suffered an economic loss? Is stealing something of no or limited value, not stealing? I was under the impression that the value of what was stolen only impacts the sanction for stealing, not mitigate the act of stealing. Similar to downloading a pirated copy vs. buying one copy for use on the 50 computers in your office.

Warm Regards
Karl

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com/ramblings.html
http://www.karltimmerman.com
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.
 
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:
linuxworks said:
I just have to disagree. if I removed a CD from the shelf, that is
clearly stealing. everyone agrees with that. its the first level
of 'obvious'.
Click to expand...
(smiling) ... so share with me: if you remove the CD from the
shelf, plug it into your laptop and copy the contents ... and then
put the CD back on the shelf ... is that stealing?
Click to expand...
the correct answer: check with your local lawyer [grin!]

let me ask you - if I read a book and then return it to the library, is that stealing?

let me also ask you - if I had borrowed (copyied) that cd and played it for a few friends and one or more decided to buy it, am I now reverse-stealing? (ha! bet you never heard it put that way before) ;)

the way I see it, the record companies owe ME money! for all the free advertising I've done for them and they've not paid me a red cent for it. not one cent. I want my past-earned and still yet still unpaid commissions!

[for the humour impaired, the last para. was in pure geste. well, 99 and 44/100% pure.]
Member said:
Member said:
you (and everyone) should be careful to
assume that an answer or standard does, in fact, exist. I argue it
does not. we, as a society, are still trying to understand this
new wrinkle in our current economic framework.
Click to expand...
Well, actually we have. The international version is called the
"Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property
(Berne Convention). And in the US, USC Title 17, "Copyrights":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
(BTW: there are now also criminal sanctions for violating a
copyright.)

"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished
literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of
expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material
form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it -
it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a
song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph,
HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper,
recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected.
Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce,
prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work
publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not
anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it."
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Bryan, I mean no offense, ill will nor disrespect, but I don't
understand your position: share with me why, taking another
person's property, (stored on a CD), converting that property to
your personal use, without that persons consent or permission, is
anything but stealing? Does it really matter that, that person may
or may not have suffered an economic loss? Is stealing something
of no or limited value, not stealing? I was under the impression
that the value of what was stolen only impacts the sanction for
stealing, not mitigate the act of stealing. Similar to downloading
a pirated copy vs. buying one copy for use on the 50 computers in
your office.

Warm Regards
Karl

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com/ramblings.html
http://www.karltimmerman.com
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.
Click to expand...
--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net ) pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:
linuxworks said:
you (and everyone) should be careful to
assume that an answer or standard does, in fact, exist. I argue it
does not. we, as a society, are still trying to understand this
new wrinkle in our current economic framework.
Click to expand...
Well, actually we have. The international version is called the
"Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property
(Berne Convention). And in the US, USC Title 17, "Copyrights":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
(BTW: there are now also criminal sanctions for violating a
copyright.)

"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished
literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of
expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material
form.
Click to expand...
IANAL (I don't even play one on TV) but maybe the 'material form' part is problematic. 'bits in the air' aren't tangible or material.

tangable material is stuff that can get 'used up'. you can't "use up" bits.

I'm not picking at words - I'm saying they don't entirely encompass the 'bits' stuff.
Member said:
This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it -
it may be protected.
Click to expand...
can a man own a tree? some cultures disagree. can a man own a description of a tree? some cultures THINK so. amazing how varied the views are.
Member said:
If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a
song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph,
HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper,
recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected.
Click to expand...
I think that concept is too strong, personally. its too limiting. 'ownership' taken to far extremes.

sure favors the content companies, huh? odd how that just happens to be...

steamboat willy was going to be public domain. according to a set of rules. fair is fair, 70 yrs later, it should be PD. guess what, disney changed the rules. midstream.

you expect me to respect their rights? I give respect when its earned.
Member said:
Bryan, I mean no offense, ill will nor disrespect, but I don't
understand your position: share with me why, taking another
person's property, (stored on a CD), converting that property to
your personal use, without that persons consent or permission, is
anything but stealing?
Click to expand...
because I don't see ownership of bits-in-space as ownership of sandwitches. for one reason or another, I just happen to view that, philosophically, different.

if I leave my home, go out for some shopping, then come back home - later to discover that someone had viewed a few of my photos. am I going to have to 'replenish the bit supply' ? did it cost me time or money to replenish my so-called stolen supplies? am I poorer for having loaned out some bit patterns?
Member said:
Does it really matter that, that person may
or may not have suffered an economic loss?
Click to expand...
I don't agree - I am not yet on the same page as agreeing with you on this so-called loss. my bits are 'gone' but they're still there. no loss.
Member said:
Is stealing something
of no or limited value, not stealing?
Click to expand...
there are MANY ways to put a price on something. when you buy a car, its at X. when you drive it 1 foot off the lot, its .7*X (or like that). value is VERY arbitrary. we have all kinds of synthetic rules about value. depreciation over time is one. why is the record I buy today (that abbey road album) basically the same price as 20 yrs ago? haven't they gotton their ROI by now? what gives someone a right to indefinite payments for one single time-slice of life (ie, a performance)? I'm not saying its right or wrong - I'm saying its arbitrary. its not an inherent universal self-evident truth, like 'murder = wrong'. payment schedules of corporations are not nearly as in-your-face obvious as murder=wrong.
Member said:
I was under the impression
that the value of what was stolen only impacts the sanction for
stealing, not mitigate the act of stealing.
Click to expand...
but we're not YET at the agreement that its stealing, so you're putting the horse before the cart. before you assume I (in the very generic sense) need to be punished, you need to prove I did a 'bad thing' first. and again, I'm not at that point of agreeing with your definition. and many people don't just accept traditional definitions of 'property' when its just bits in air.

--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net ) pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
linuxworks said:
jdonalds2001 said:
I try to respect the persons and companies that produced products
so I purchase everything. Some 10 years ago I purged my home of
anything I had not obtained legally. I won't give copies of
software, music, or videos to anyone who does not live in my house.
Click to expand...
where did THAT rule come from? seems quite arbitrary. are ALL
your licensed goods truly available at a 'site' license? or just
for the original purchaser (you)? here, you have made a judgement
call that anyone inside your closed radius can benefit from
software that YOU paid for. how is that morally different from
extending the circle a notch? and another notch?
Click to expand...
You're right. It's aritrary. My thinking is this. I did the right thing by paying for the music, software, or DVD. I just want to use that item in different ways and for my own convienience I make copies to use so I don't have to keep moving it, for example from car to car. I just limit it to my realm which is my house and vehicles associated with my house. Arbritray yes.
linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:
On the other hand if I have paid for a music track I do feel
comfortable making copies to use in my mp3 player, or to keep a CD
copy in each car.
Click to expand...
and what if this changes and the record companies convince congress
that only 1 copy of the 'content' (music, etc) should exist per
format? will you simply say 'ok' and then purge all mp3 copies and
re-buy them? don't say this won't happen - sony already tried it!
others have also. they DO want to regulate not only the content
but the format you play it in. later on, even the TIMESLOT you
listen in. later the LOCATION you are in where you listen. not
going to happen? time will tell..
Click to expand...
My thinking is the record companies are trying to prevent people from obtaining a copy without paying for it. I don't do that. I pay. If they want to restrict it to one copy per format and ask me to pay for multiple copies for my own use I think that is unreasonable. Arbritray again but I'll bet if everybody followed these rules the industry would be happy and they would back off. If Sony makes CDs that can't be copied I won't buy them.
linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:
I have to admit that I purchased 4 DVDs in Moscow at the flea
market though. Those are illegal copies and as far as I know they
are the only things in my home that bypassed legal means.
Click to expand...
so you do admit you bend the rules when YOU see fit. that's fine -
each person has to judge on a case by case basis. but if you
purged your house, why are those still there?
Click to expand...
You're right and it has been weighing on me. I'll have to purge those too. I'm not perfect.
linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:
When I do buy I have no quams about searching the internet for the
best price though. I'll even take a risk from time to time and buy
from a vendor that may not have the best rating just so I can
squeeze out the best price. So far I haven't been burned.
Click to expand...
that has nothing to do with paying or not paying. there is (so
far) nothing immoral or illegal about comparison price shopping
(although, some stores will get ANNOYED if they see you writing
down prices - comparison shopping. yes, its happened. shocking,
huh?)

--
bryan ( http://www.grateful.net )
pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ,
(sample fz30 raw files: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
Click to expand...
John
--
Following Jesus best I can
 
jdonalds2001 said:
jdonalds2001 said:
so you do admit you bend the rules when YOU see fit. that's fine -
each person has to judge on a case by case basis. but if you
purged your house, why are those still there?
Click to expand...
You're right and it has been weighing on me. I'll have to purge
those too. I'm not perfect.

John
--
Following Jesus best I can
Click to expand...
--

Does deleting from your computer and throwing away any copies relieve your of your guilt?

If one were to shoplift something and then simply destroyed it or threw it away would it resolve them of their guilt?

I am no Bible expert by any means but it seems to me that one would still have to pay for what he took and ask the copyright holders for forgiveness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bejersey
ZV-1 Is there an actual online manual?
Replies
1
Views
827
ishwanu
I
Bejersey
RP with 28mm f2.8 Canon lens shoots a portrait at farmers Market L.A.
Replies
2
Views
823
Bejersey
Bejersey
Bejersey
Just two from today with my RP and Canon. 28mm in dowtown L.A.
Replies
1
Views
77
BigBen08
B
hunikond70
Nikon Z50ii for wildlife & bird photography
2
Replies
20
Views
398
PLShutterbug
P
Bejersey
At my friends funeral. Grieving
Replies
2
Views
3
Bejersey
Bejersey

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top