Your morals on duplication (a question)

[nutball]

Problem is, with the traditional industries I guess we're talking about here (ie. movies, music, software) that there really isn't much negotiation when it comes to price, because there are monopolies or pseudo-monopolies (cartels: MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft) in place to regulate the price.

Price and value are two very distinct things. A Brittney Spears song has a very well defined price. It has a almost totally undefined value (zero IMO, but others may disagree).

In a traditional financial transaction, the buyer gets to weigh up price and value, and can refuse to pay the asking price. Depending on how desperate the seller is, they will respond by adjust (dropping) the asking price. If this means they then have to adjust their production costs to meet the market price, then they have to (and will) do so.

With the copying thing, the monopoly/cartels are essentially refusing to negotiate on price, equating price with (their perceived) value, and threatening to sue anyone who disagrees. They miss the point that it's my assessment of value that counts in the transaction, not theirs.

So in the end you have an industry that is financially structured on it's own internal assessment of the value of the products that it sells, paying no regard to the value assessment of the punters who buy (or "steal") their products.

Fundamentally, (casual, non-commercialised) piracy should be taken as a message that the product you're producing isn't worth what you think it is. This may well mean a re-structuring of the industry, and bad news for the individuals involved, but you shouldn't just dismiss people who make copies of games of pure crims, they're sending you a message you need to listen to.

 

[Druga Runda]

Problem is, with the traditional industries I guess we're talking about here (ie. movies, music, software) that there really isn't much negotiation when it comes to price, because there are monopolies or pseudo-monopolies (cartels: MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft) in place to regulate the price.

Price and value are two very distinct things. A Brittney Spears song has a very well defined price. It has a almost totally undefined value (zero IMO, but others may disagree).

In a traditional financial transaction, the buyer gets to weigh up price and value, and can refuse to pay the asking price. Depending on how desperate the seller is, they will respond by adjust (dropping) the asking price. If this means they then have to adjust their production costs to meet the market price, then they have to (and will) do so.

With the copying thing, the monopoly/cartels are essentially refusing to negotiate on price, equating price with (their perceived) value, and threatening to sue anyone who disagrees. They miss the point that it's my assessment of value that counts in the transaction, not theirs.

So in the end you have an industry that is financially structured on it's own internal assessment of the value of the products that it sells, paying no regard to the value assessment of the punters who buy (or "steal") their products.

Fundamentally, (casual, non-commercialised) piracy should be taken as a message that the product you're producing isn't worth what you think it is. This may well mean a re-structuring of the industry, and bad news for the individuals involved, but you shouldn't just dismiss people who make copies of games of pure crims, they're sending you a message you need to listen to.

 

[DemoCoder]

You can refuse to pay their price as well. Just don't buy and listen to RIAA music. That doesn't mean you steal their music. It means you boycott them totally.

There are lots of websites where you can get independent MP3 band music. Why steal Britney Spears or Spice Girls?

 

[zidane1strife]

Right, so pretty much some agree that there is a universal moral on the copying of *any* material, whether or not the entity being "unfairly taken advantage of" is a good/moral one.
I think I'm leaning more to; if you can do it with your means (ie, your own pc/car copier/steak copier), and if it is not harming anyone (like burning your own house down, and consequently, your neighbors, + smoke etc), then it's your right.

True... What if I could share, as in transfer, my memories wiith friends and family, and they were photographic ones, would it be illegal to do so? BS, no matter the artist or the work, my mind and what's in it is mine, and I can share it at will... if with more tech I can do this, then I'll do it now, unless they use some sort of copy-protection. When the day comes, what are they going to do prohibit me from one day attaining such tech? That's pure BS.

Besides, an advanced mind could come up with all possible works of arts, including those of all possible individual artists. Thus even I could come up with all those ideas and works if I attained more capability, regardless of their desire to share.

As for hurting someone, we currently allow people to drink alcohol and smoke, although it may lead to the harming of others... though I disagree with these, I believe that if only the very individual is harmed by an action, it's his right.

If you could find her to put her in a scanner, you probably wouldn't need it anyway.

You don't need her, there's enough information flying around for you to reconstruct her if need be...

Do you really believe that violating someone's desire as to how their artwork is displayed is moral?

It's theirs for now, but it's also of all those who attain higher capabilities....

umm.... well..... if you can just go round willy nilly copying everything you want then noone would have to ever work because you just shove whatever you want in the copier and make a few billion copes for everyone.... of course, you'd still have to have people having jubs but then they would be doing it because they enjoy what they are doing and not because they have to make money. so, then, they aren't getting paid for the job and dont need to get paid for it then what's wrong with copying it? if an artist wants something public then it really means PUBLIC, otherwise it's PRIVATE

IAWTP

and you wouldnt have a chance to copy it unless you stole the oriinal work.

Nope, if you increase in capability and get to a certain point, the work is yours even if they burn it , destroy it, etc. Things are private as long as we have limited abilities, even your present intimate life will be public knowledge to those who attain sufficient abilities, no need to spy or anything.

Problem is, with the traditional industries I guess we're talking about here (ie. movies, music, software) that there really isn't much negotiation when it comes to price, because there are monopolies or pseudo-monopolies (cartels: MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft) in place to regulate the price.

Price and value are two very distinct things. A Brittney Spears song has a very well defined price. It has a almost totally undefined value (zero IMO, but others may disagree).

In a traditional financial transaction, the buyer gets to weigh up price and value, and can refuse to pay the asking price. Depending on how desperate the seller is, they will respond by adjust (dropping) the asking price. If this means they then have to adjust their production costs to meet the market price, then they have to (and will) do so.

With the copying thing, the monopoly/cartels are essentially refusing to negotiate on price, equating price with (their perceived) value, and threatening to sue anyone who disagrees. They miss the point that it's my assessment of value that counts in the transaction, not theirs.

So in the end you have an industry that is financially structured on it's own internal assessment of the value of the products that it sells, paying no regard to the value assessment of the punters who buy (or "steal") their products.

Fundamentally, (casual, non-commercialised) piracy should be taken as a message that the product you're producing isn't worth what you think it is. This may well mean a re-structuring of the industry, and bad news for the individuals involved, but you shouldn't just dismiss people who make copies of games of pure crims, they're sending you a message you need to listen to.