Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: John McWilliams on 28 Apr 2010 12:15
I can't easily read this incredible debate, in part because at least two
of the actors hit return while typing.

Let your news client do the wrapping. Line return is only for
paragraphs. Full stop.

--
lsmft
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 12:35
On 28 apr, 18:15, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I can't easily read this incredible debate, in part because at least two
> of the actors hit return while typing.
>
> Let your news client do the wrapping. Line return is only for
> paragraphs. Full stop.
>
> --
> lsmft

Sorry about that.. I use groups.google to access newsgroups.
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 13:22
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>All digital information can be duplicated indefinitely free from
>additional costs and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is
>infinite, regardless of the demand.

Thieves and criminals often justify their crimes by insisting that
their stealing doesn't hurt anyone.

"All [money] can be duplicated indefinitely free from additional costs
and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is infinite, regardless of
the demand."

Thus the criminal justifies stealing from the local bank, or justifies
stealing billions from the government, or stealing the work of
hundreds of people.

Of course, moral people see the gaping flaws in such an argument.
The thief expects OTHER people to pay to have the "digital
information" so he doesn't have to. If nobody pays for that "digital
information" then it simply would not exist. On the upside, we would
no longer have to listen to the self-serving bullshit of a crook.

>The price of things is a way to indicate it's relative scarcity (based
>on economic laws of supply and demand) and digital information simply
>isn't scarce.

But you're not stealing just "digital information". You're stealing
very specific information that costs millions of dollars to produce.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 13:52
On 28 apr, 19:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> sobriquet  <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >All digital information can be duplicated indefinitely free from
> >additional costs and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is
> >infinite, regardless of the demand.
>
> Thieves and criminals often justify their crimes by insisting that
> their stealing doesn't hurt anyone.
>
> "All [money] can be duplicated indefinitely free from additional costs
> and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is infinite, regardless of
> the demand."
>
> Thus the criminal justifies stealing from the local bank, or justifies
> stealing billions from the government, or stealing the work of
> hundreds of people.
>
> Of course, moral people see the gaping flaws in such an argument.
> The thief expects OTHER people to pay to have the "digital
> information" so he doesn't have to.  If nobody pays for that "digital
> information" then it simply would not exist.  On the upside, we would
> no longer have to listen to the self-serving bullshit of a crook.

Bullshit. Money has been carefully designed to prevent people from
being able
to duplicate it indefinitely free from additional costs.

If people would use bit-strings as money, you could expect people to
share money on p2p
networks just the same.
It has nothing to do with morals, it has everything to do with the
fact that bitstrings can be duplicated indefinitely free from
additional costs, while money can't.

>
> >The price of things is a way to indicate it's relative scarcity (based
> >on economic laws of supply and demand) and digital information simply
> >isn't scarce.
>
> But you're not stealing just "digital information".  You're stealing
> very specific information that costs millions of dollars to produce.

That's irrelevant. You can spend millions of dollars to produce
garbage and
that doesn't mean you can expect (much less demand) people to pay for
garbage.

>
> --
> Ray Fischer        
> rfisc...(a)sonic.net  

From: Twibil on 28 Apr 2010 15:00
On Apr 28, 3:14 am, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's so elegant to call file sharers thieves.

Um, "file sharers" is just a phrase thieves invented/adopted to
rationalize theft in their own minds.

A "file sharer" -used as you define it- is a thief: plain and simple.

> Really, that is bound to convince people
> to respect the 'rights' of corporate nazi
> scum.

Shrug.

You can never, ever, "convince" a psychotic/sociopath of anything.
They have entirely self-consistant world-views, in which anything they
say or do is entirely justified.

And it's easy to tell when you've met one: because they use
inappropriate descriptors and/or invent entirely new phrases to
provide that self-justification.

Ta.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco