[Callan S.]

I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.

It was indeed a random thing, and a technical observation because I strongly believe that understanding (which does not mean agreeing with!) each other comes first through making sure we all know what we're talking about.
It was indeed a clarification or a technical observation.
Said technicality is not a reason, certainly not my reason, to handwave the argument away. It's sole purpose was to clarify. Semantics matters when discussing something. Especially when it involves legal labels.

I don't think you're getting that we aren't discussing semantics, we are deciding semantics.

We're deciding what things will get you locked up in prison. It's like we've got someone lined up in front of a firing squad but you're trying to argue he's being shot for infringement, not theft. In the old days they'd hang you for murder or stealing an apple - murder aint stealing, but being hung for both makes drawing a difference kind of pointless. Semantic arguments are pointless unless we get down to physical outcomes. Like Cnaiur says to Moenghus, he is lettered - that he complains about the slaver killing his slaves or the husband striking his wife. "But. You! Do! Nothing!". A conversation that goes into 'do nothing' semantics is stonewalling.

As to the latter half of your message. I don't see all of that as mutually exclusive. Piracy is a loss of a sale that should have rightfully taken place. Piracy also happens, sometimes, because people want to try before they buy. Or because they are <insert other reason>.
One thing is to establish WHAT something is. The other is WHY do people do it. That's not an either/or situation. They are totally different things, but can be discussed together.

They can't be discussed together - they are two different subjects. When you say 'It's a loss of sale...or it's X', that's making it one subject. "The light switch can be on or it can be off" makes on or off part of the same subject.

I'm not trying to be antagonizing but Im not blind to your annoyance with me so I will show myself the door.

Well you're putting words/emotions in my mouth there, after making your argument then saying you're leaving after having made it. Making it a one way communication where I am to listen but not be listened to. These aren't exactly positive things to do. At best I think you're confusing straight talk for annoyance.

[Callan S.]

MGM,

Or at least refer to the example I made earlier with people renting out their rooftops to look into arena events.  Is that wrong?

I already said yes. It was the first thing I said in reply. At most the concert providers have accepted people who already live there will look out of their windows. Adding more people doing that without talking with the concert providers (particularly at a profit) - well, what do you call it when people do things without actually asking permission first? At the very least, its the mark of people who do not work together. People who want to eat the bread but put no effort into baking it. Freeloaders.

I have no idea why you raise 'risks' of trespass as being a point of difference. Because an author wont come and personally defend their income in the same way as you defending your home - with potential lethal force? Sounds like you think you have teeth in regards to trespass, but the author does not - so it's different to you because of the level of potential violence.

If the problem is merely that it's wrong to "get into a book without paying" then going to a bookstore and looking through books is wrong.

Depends if it's legal. Also you can't read it properly/to it's full extent. I once saw a guy who I suspect had a photographic memory scanning the pages of a technical book in a store. Yes, I'd say he was wrong to do that. But it's so edge case I'm not going to go on about that one.

Ok so am I morally obligated to compensate someone everytime external stimuli modifies my brain?

Right after I've said 'modified in a way you could not have without the author' you repeat it in this severed version - this is disingenuous argument. Then giving a completely off topic example - as if pirates are just walking down the street and then someone keeps flashing the words of a book at them or something. As if they didn't seek out the modification. You've got multiple red flags here of just blocking out huge chunks of what is being said to you - it really is coming off as a rationalising Yar.

Are you just here to advertise an ideology? To be listened to but offer no listening in exchange for that? I wont bother reading the rest if it's a commercial. And me saying that will be the mark of the advertiser. As soon as they aren't listened to they leave in a huff (with little effort even put into that) because that's all they were there for to begin with. To have ears while their own were closed. Getting listening for free. More freeloading, hidden under a guise of genuine discussion. Kellhus-like.

Or maybe you'll put effort into listening and take my example as any amount of charity would show it - that you can't get your brain modified without the author and if you sought to do so then you owe her or him the exchange they seek. I hope it's this - I hope I just went on a questioning rant about advertisers as a false positive and I'm wrong on that and just look silly for ranting. I'd rather be wrong. That's why I raised it as a question, rather than an advertisement of fact.

[MisterGuyMan]

I already said yes. It was the first thing I said in reply. At most the concert providers have accepted people who already live there will look out of their windows. Adding more people doing that without talking with the concert providers (particularly at a profit) - well, what do you call it when people do things without actually asking permission first? At the very least, its the mark of people who do not work together. People who want to eat the bread but put no effort into baking it. Freeloaders.

The problem is this basic thing called property rights that predate copyright.  As a matter of fact, copyright cannot even exist without the assumption that property rights also exist.  Basically if I own a building then I have a right to do whatever I want with it.  What you're arguing is mere courtesy if that.  Did the stadium owners ask the neighborhood building owners if it was OK to alter their rooftop view?  So why are the building owners morally obligated to limit their property usage? 

I have no idea why you raise 'risks' of trespass as being a point of difference. Because an author wont come and personally defend their income in the same way as you defending your home - with potential lethal force? Sounds like you think you have teeth in regards to trespass, but the author does not - so it's different to you because of the level of potential violence.

You're basically somehow sweeping public safety concerns under a rug and you believe this is a a valid argument.  I can use a historic example if you want.  In the Middle Ages, before copyright, Monks copied a lot of the classic important works.  No one had a problem with this.  This is not to say that those same people would have been ok with allowing people to actually do violence against the monks.  That's the best reply I have since I'm honestly not sure how to respond to a point that is trying to dismiss concerns about violence.

Depends if it's legal. Also you can't read it properly/to it's full extent. I once saw a guy who I suspect had a photographic memory scanning the pages of a technical book in a store. Yes, I'd say he was wrong to do that. But it's so edge case I'm not going to go on about that one.

Not as fringe case as you think.  I know for a fact that lots of people finish entire manga books in bookstores.

Plus since you're relying on legalities again, I redirect you once more to the Infringement Nation article.  Based purely on legalities, are you allowing yourself to be a pirate.

Right after I've said 'modified in a way you could not have without the author' you repeat it in this severed version - this is disingenuous argument. Then giving a completely off topic example - as if pirates are just walking down the street and then someone keeps flashing the words of a book at them or something. As if they didn't seek out the modification. You've got multiple red flags here of just blocking out huge chunks of what is being said to you - it really is coming off as a rationalising Yar.

Please stop the soap box antics.  You have basically ignored every major point I've responded with.  I'm at least making an effort to discuss the issue with you.  Let's be real here.  You have made no effort, at all, to even acknowledge seriously, let alone respond to, my major points.

But feel free to highlight whatever point you think is important that I ignored.  I have no qualms addressing it.  You wanted the "modify your brain" standard so I addressed why such a standard doesn't actually help you in any way. 

Are you just here to advertise an ideology? To be listened to but offer no listening in exchange for that? I wont bother reading the rest if it's a commercial. And me saying that will be the mark of the advertiser. As soon as they aren't listened to they leave in a huff (with little effort even put into that) because that's all they were there for to begin with. To have ears while their own were closed. Getting listening for free. More freeloading, hidden under a guise of genuine discussion. Kellhus-like.

Is is a bunch of blatant Ad Hominem and Red Herring Fallacies.  I'm sorry but this is a genuine discussion.  You so far just repeat your morality argument while ignoring everything I say. 

Or maybe you'll put effort into listening and take my example as any amount of charity would show it - that you can't get your brain modified without the author and if you sought to do so then you owe her or him the exchange they seek. I hope it's this - I hope I just went on a questioning rant about advertisers as a false positive and I'm wrong on that and just look silly for ranting. I'd rather be wrong. That's why I raised it as a question, rather than an advertisement of fact.

That's the entire point.  I don't know who the author of that unnamed song is and I don't know what compensation they're seeking.  If you dislike that then apply the Cali-Roll example you keep ignoring.  Am I supposed to write the Cali-Roll inventor and ask for terms?  What about the nearly-as-universal Philly Roll?  Tempura Roll? 

I also don't even see what your "without the author" criteria.  That applies to any created work ever.  The unknown song I heard?  An unnamed author wrote it.  No brain modification from that song is possible without the author actually writing the song in the first place.

And since you seem to think I'm ignoring your points, you should at least be aware that you hypocritical do the same:
1.  I pointed out that your theft and piracy is a false equivalence.  I gave legal and practical differences.  You have ignored this point.
2. You argued that copying a sushi roll isn't theft because... no reason actually.  I pointed out the double standard of such a position and showed that just because the idea of sushi rolls were 'small' would no mean that, under your logic, it's OK to steal small things. You have ignored this.
3.  You argued that we should follow copyright laws because they're laws.  I then pointed out that you, wether you realize it not, are a hypocrite for trying to make this argument at all.  You have ignored this point.
4. You argued a thinly veiled appeal to majority fallacy when you equated me to a Hermit that tries to cheat at boardgames.  I pointed out that for the vast history of human civilization, copyright wasn't even a thing and even today, the majority of the world's population live in countries with lax copyright laws.  This is, again, something you just ignore.

I'm raising very legitimate points here and you seem to think I'm the one evading.  Feel free to repeat whatever it is you think I missed and I'll address it.  I'd expect the same courtesy from you though.

[H]

Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.

[Redeagl]

Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.

Ahh H, TUC made you ascend into a Mod.... Gone is the guy who just makes mad NG theories.

[Wilshire]

Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.

To add, if anyone feels that there should be more or less moderation in this thread, please let us know . You guys are all great, thanks for engaging.

[MisterGuyMan]

No Problem.  I really do prefer the prevention method of moderation and we should be good going forward.

[Frail]

I can't quite nail this point down, but there is something to be said about millennials taking this issue too personally, and having a warped perspective. The internet has been so instrumental in their lives / growing up that they cant help but see themselves personally shaping it. "I am apart of this movement."

It also doesn't help that we live live in an Everything Now era. Any critism of this new state is met with "Get with the times old man!"

And yeah, people will make record profits even with piracy, the internet has simply built more roads to access customers.

[Callan S.]

MGM,

Please stop the soap box antics.  You have basically ignored every major point I've responded with.

Maybe it's just that. And in regards to what I say, that you're reading my example uncharitably, could that be the case?

Or only I could be doing 'soap box antics', but you could not be falling into any similar habit? Only the other guy, me, could be doing something wrong, not you?

If you want to tell others they've done wrong but not consider you might have done wrong, then it's just a question of whether the forum involved enables your trolling. It really is trolling to say others are doing something wrong, but not consider you could be too.

I've said 'Maybe' to your charge of soap boxing. Can you say 'maybe' to my charge you've read and replied uncharitably? (Edit: and at the start of your post, like I did, because we're not going to enable one way listening/advertising here). If not, you're trolling. I don't know why you think you think you're better and can tell others they've done something wrong, but you don't have to say you'll consider you've done something wrong - you're not our peer? I would prefer moderation to step in at that point, rather than enabling someone to tell others they are doing something bad but plug their ears to hearing they are doing something bad.

If I'm ignoring all your points, if you actually say 'Maybe' to the idea you've read and replied uncharitably, we'll see if I ignore that.

In regards to moderation: Yeah, I don't think someone acting like they are not everyone else's peer in how they feel they can judge others without considering judgements apply to them...I don't think that's social behavior. If you're gunna judge, you've gotta be able to openly consider judgements laid toward you. Something that Voxday or acrackedmoon would never do, o/c.

[MSJ]

Callan S., I've noticed in this forum and at the "other" one also, you seem to get very confrontational and seem to talk down to others. Now, I am not saying this is your intent, sir. I am very bad at internet conversation and tend to say things the wrong way. In a earlier post, MGM, explicicty said that he felt your anger towards him. And, he was "showing hisself the door". You haven't acknowledged that. Maybe MGM needs to acknowledge certain things to make this conversation more amicable. Maybe you need to acknowledge certain other things than what you chose to pick to acknowledge. You want his respect of readiing your whole post and acknowledging all of it, but, you haven't done the same.

Sorry, not a MOD, not trying to be one, just offering observations.

[Redeagl]

If I was a mod, I would close the
thread, it's really going nowhere and have been treading on the edge of the rules from page 1.

[MisterGuyMan]

Maybe it's just that. And in regards to what I say, that you're reading my example uncharitably, could that be the case?

Or only I could be doing 'soap box antics', but you could not be falling into any similar habit? Only the other guy, me, could be doing something wrong, not you?

If you want to tell others they've done wrong but not consider you might have done wrong, then it's just a question of whether the forum involved enables your trolling. It really is trolling to say others are doing something wrong, but not consider you could be too.

I've said 'Maybe' to your charge of soap boxing. Can you say 'maybe' to my charge you've read and replied uncharitably? (Edit: and at the start of your post, like I did, because we're not going to enable one way listening/advertising here). If not, you're trolling. I don't know why you think you think you're better and can tell others they've done something wrong, but you don't have to say you'll consider you've done something wrong - you're not our peer? I would prefer moderation to step in at that point, rather than enabling someone to tell others they are doing something bad but plug their ears to hearing they are doing something bad.

If I'm ignoring all your points, if you actually say 'Maybe' to the idea you've read and replied uncharitably, we'll see if I ignore that.

In regards to moderation: Yeah, I don't think someone acting like they are not everyone else's peer in how they feel they can judge others without considering judgements apply to them...I don't think that's social behavior. If you're gunna judge, you've gotta be able to openly consider judgements laid toward you. Something that Voxday or acrackedmoon would never do, o/c.

Your entire reply had no actual relevant information at all.  I posted multiple points you ignored.  I asked you to address them.  You have not.  I asked you to point out what points you feel I ignored.  You have not.  I'm simply not interested in your apparent attempts to make this topic about me.

If you dislike whatever soap box antics I'm committing, then feel free to ignore those soapbox statements.  I made several actual points that are also worth responding to.

[H]

OK, we tried, but this does not look like it is going to be working out.  I think everyone is pretty well entrenched at this point and I doubt the civility level will really rise.  Not to mention, I very much doubt that any real headway is actually going to be made on the topic at hand.

We're going to lock this up.  If someone has an issue, feel free to PM me (or another Staff member).

[EDIT Madness: Spelling.]

[Madness]

I know the thread is closed but for science!