FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Askold on November 19, 2013, 11:57:48 pm
-
Oh, but it's totally not stealing, because you're only making another copy. You're not actually taking anything away from anyone, therefore it's not only totally okay, but actually a basic human right to pirate! If you disagree, you're nothing more than a shill for the big, evil corporations.
I remember having one argument about digital piracy where a guy who used that same argument but took it up a notch... Saying that piracy is a bit like if you had a gun that would make a copy out of anything and if you used that to multiply bread and gave it away to starving people you would be considered a hero and therefore digital pirates should also be celebrated.
His whole argument revolved over the fact that pirates aren't "stealing" anything and they merely have this magical ability to CREATE more wonderful things and unlike greedy pigs that made the original version they just give away their "creations" for free...
-
If there is one thing Piracy has done for me, it was encourage me to go out and actually buy the album or game because I liked it so much.
Example in case, previously every game I have for my Sega Genesis collection (and just one game for the Sega CD), a one point I only "owned" ROM images of them. Now, I like have a decently sized amount of those "cream of the crop" games. And this is including Gunstar Heroes, which is like the most sought-after game in my collection, and yes, it came in the box.
Oh, I still want to go mod my Gen and make it play Japan-exclusive games, including some of my all-time favorite games Pulseman and Monster World IV.
-
Oh, but it's totally not stealing, because you're only making another copy. You're not actually taking anything away from anyone, therefore it's not only totally okay, but actually a basic human right to pirate! If you disagree, you're nothing more than a shill for the big, evil corporations.
I remember having one argument about digital piracy where a guy who used that same argument but took it up a notch... Saying that piracy is a bit like if you had a gun that would make a copy out of anything and if you used that to multiply bread and gave it away to starving people you would be considered a hero and therefore digital pirates should also be celebrated.
His whole argument revolved over the fact that pirates aren't "stealing" anything and they merely have this magical ability to CREATE more wonderful things and unlike greedy pigs that made the original version they just give away their "creations" for free...
I've mentioned this before, but that's why I try to follow a specific set of "rules" when I do pirate:
1. Only download and keep abandonware or something that nobody is making money from any longer, or a game that I previously purchased and either want to switch to playing on the PC or I can no longer install or play with the disc..
2. If it's a newer game or one that the creators are otherwise still making money from, only download it to see if it'll run on the system and trade it for a purchased copy if I find that it does or remove it if it doesn't.
-
Oh, but it's totally not stealing, because you're only making another copy. You're not actually taking anything away from anyone, therefore it's not only totally okay, but actually a basic human right to pirate! If you disagree, you're nothing more than a shill for the big, evil corporations.
Sounds like a strawman to me, but it has a kernel of truth.
It's not stealing unless someone else is deprived of the copy you took. The "big, evil corporations" love to use those words to make copyright infringement sound more criminal than it really is.
We cannot build general-purpose computers that can do everything except the things copyright holders don't like. It's my right to do whatever I want with my machine. If your proposed solution to the infringement problem is to install spyware on my computer that prevents me from, say, copying certain things, you are in fact violating basic ownership rights and it is in my best interest to circumvent those restrictions.
-
*sips soda*
Just waiting for the popcorn to pop.
-
Here we go again.
-
*Sigh* Should I even bother? No, probably not.
-
We cannot build general-purpose computers that can do everything except the things copyright holders don't like. It's my right to do whatever I want with my machine. If your proposed solution to the infringement problem is to install spyware on my computer that prevents me from, say, copying certain things, you are in fact violating basic ownership rights and it is in my best interest to circumvent those restrictions.
So... Let me get this straight. You think that simply owning a computer means it's now your right to take software you haven't paid for? I'm not quite certain yet, but this could well be #1 in my list of most retarded arguments that piracy apologists use. Actually, I'm quite sure that it is.
-
*Effie Trinket voice* Yaaaay, piracy fight!
-
So... Let me get this straight. You think that simply owning a computer means it's now your right to take software you haven't paid for? I'm not quite certain yet, but this could well be #1 in my list of most retarded arguments that piracy apologists use. Actually, I'm quite sure that it is.
Personally, I go out of my way to avoid using software that has a price tag, but I don't particularly care if someone else procures a copy without paying. I do not consider software worth paying for unless I get the source code along with it.
-
So... Let me get this straight. You think that simply owning a computer means it's now your right to take software you haven't paid for? I'm not quite certain yet, but this could well be #1 in my list of most retarded arguments that piracy apologists use. Actually, I'm quite sure that it is.
Personally, I go out of my way to avoid using software that has a price tag, but I don't particularly care if someone else procures a copy without paying. I do not consider software worth paying for unless I get the source code along with it.
Doesn't change the fact that your logic is utterly fucking pants on head stupid. It's like saying "I own a car, therefore I can mount an anti-tank RPG on the roof because it's my right to modify it however the fuck I want."
-
Doesn't change the fact that your logic is utterly fucking pants on head stupid. It's like saying "I own a car, therefore I can mount an anti-tank RPG on the roof because it's my right to modify it however the fuck I want."
That's a horrible analogy. When the things I can do with a PC box in any way approach the things I could do with a rocket launcher, you might have a point.
-
Doesn't change the fact that your logic is utterly fucking pants on head stupid. It's like saying "I own a car, therefore I can mount an anti-tank RPG on the roof because it's my right to modify it however the fuck I want."
That's a horrible analogy. When the things I can do with a PC box in any way approach the things I could do with a rocket launcher, you might have a point.
The point is that just because you own something, you don't have the right to do illegal things with it.
-
The point is that just because you own something, you don't have the right to do illegal things with it.
Legality is not the same as morality, and you have not made a clear moral case why copyright infringement is wrong.
-
Do you enjoy movies and video games? Specifically, big budget productions? Or do you only watch indie movies and play indie games? Do you only read books that are in the public domain?
-
Our current copyright length of 95 years is morally indefensible. Copyright infringement is a valid pushback against excesses like that.
-
Truly, pirates are the robin hoods of our time.
-
Our current copyright length of 95 years is morally indefensible. Copyright infringement is a valid pushback against excesses like that.
Oh please. That's the weakest, most pathetic excuse I've ever heard. Piracy is not political activism. In fact, not only does it motivate such draconic copyright law in the first place, but it also means no business or lawmaker will give a flying fuck about what you have to say. Anyone with even a passing interest in political activism is well aware of this fact. Pirates are not some great heroes, defending the "little guy" from the "evil corporations". They're common thieves, nothing more than that. No puffed up hero complex is going to change or justify it.
-
The point is that just because you own something, you don't have the right to do illegal things with it.
Legality is not the same as morality, and you have not made a clear moral case why copyright infringement is wrong.
How about this: every copy you acquire illegally is a copy that the company does not sell. Whether or not you would have purchased it otherwise is a strawman, since you now have the software and have therefore subtracted a sale. Is it right and moral to subtract sales from a company just because you feel like it?
Our current copyright length of 95 years is morally indefensible. Copyright infringement is a valid pushback against excesses like that.
So you only consume media that is over a certain age? Or do you consume media that is new?
For the record, these are direct questions.
-
Split from the funny pictures thread, please carry on.
-
Props to Sigmaleph for moving this.
now where was i...
Our current copyright length of 95 years is morally indefensible. Copyright infringement is a valid pushback against excesses like that.
So you only consume media that is over a certain age? Or do you consume media that is new?
For the record, these are direct questions.
Like I said, at least when it comes to software, I don't buy it unless I have some assurance that it will be around for a long, long time -- either in some easily-accessible physical media like a video game cartridge or I get the source code so I can port it to newer platforms. Basically, if it's a pay-for-download, I'm not using it. Most of the software that I use is free software, so that's almost never an issue. Almost all of the video games I have are over 15 years old, and I claim 10 years would be a fair copyright duration for games.
The new movies I want to watch are generally in theaters, so I do end up purchasing a movie ticket for those. If the movie is very inconvenient to get to through official channels (say, a film festival release only), I get it with a torrent.
I download new TV shows because they are broadcast to the public and broadcasters should have no expectation that their data remains in private hands. We already made the mistake of leasing valuable TV channel space for them to use exclusively, and I don't see any qualms with storing data that is already being broadcast.
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
Short answer: yes. You have to provide the claim that restricting what I can do with your media is morally acceptable. Most of us don't get paychecks for work we've done decades ago (thanks to our ludicrously long copyright duration), so I have trouble sympathizing with your plight.
Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for the electronic media devices I use to have spyware installed on them that I cannot remove so that copyright holders can remotely control access to my copies of their work? Is it still moral when this spyware inevitably interferes with other non-copyright-infringement things I want to do with those devices?
-
I like pirating things, because doing it makes me feel dirty.
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
Short answer: yes.
Oh, to be young and entitled again.
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
Short answer: yes.
Oh, to be young and entitled again.
You two are the same age. Now start acting like it (obvious joke).
-
Oh, to be young and entitled again.
Respect your elder, whippersnapper!
-
We cannot build general-purpose computers that can do everything except the things copyright holders don't like. It's my right to do whatever I want with my machine. If your proposed solution to the infringement problem is to install spyware on my computer that prevents me from, say, copying certain things, you are in fact violating basic ownership rights and it is in my best interest to circumvent those restrictions.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnar!
The purpose of copyright software mechanisms is control first and foremost. Though controlling what a consumer can see and do a company forces a consumer into limited choices. These limited choices are explicitly designed to benefit that company.
The really funny part is that such software mechanisms are costly and ineffective. DRM is a damn good example. How much did it cost to develop and maintain? How much additional cost was incurred by the backlash and conflict with anti-virus companies? How quickly is it defeated by pirates?
-
Everytime i pirate somethung and piss off a moralfag.
I get an erection.
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
Short answer: yes.
Oh, to be young and entitled again.
You two are the same age. Now start acting like it (obvious joke).
You want me to get stupider?
That might actually cause a black hole.
-
Everytime i pirate somethung and piss off a moralfag.
I get an erection.
Deimos wins the thread.
I pirate, but do so quite rarely and don't do it for any "moral" or "entitlement" reasons. I just do it; I know there's no justification, and I don't really care. I'm not "owed" it, I just want it, and if I can get it...well, bully for me, then.
-
Short answer: yes. You have to provide the claim that restricting what I can do with your media is morally acceptable. Most of us don't get paychecks for work we've done decades ago (thanks to our ludicrously long copyright duration), so I have trouble sympathizing with your plight.
ID saw this coming decades ago when they released the source code for Doom (http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_source_code), heck even the source code for Doom3 BFG Edition (https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG). They were smart enough to realize that their dedicated consumer base will improve and create new content for both engines. Such efforts would keep both games relevant even after development stopped. More importantly, people would still buy both even after development stopped.
-
Short answer: yes. You have to provide the claim that restricting what I can do with your media is morally acceptable. Most of us don't get paychecks for work we've done decades ago (thanks to our ludicrously long copyright duration), so I have trouble sympathizing with your plight.
ID saw this coming decades ago when they released the source code for Doom (http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_source_code), heck even the source code for Doom3 BFG Edition (https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG). They were smart enough to realize that their dedicated consumer base will improve and create new content for both engines. Such efforts would keep both games relevant even after development stopped. More importantly, people would still buy both even after development stopped.
Plus, if you take a look at things like Counter Strike, you can see that they can be quite fertile recruiting grounds for young developers.
-
I am an artist and writer who earns a small but growing portion of his income from art and writing, which is made possible by intellectual property and copyright law.
Direct question for Ironchew: Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for someone to take copies of my art and writing without my permission?
Short answer: yes.
Short reply: fuck you.
Essentially you're saying that the time, effort, thought, and yes, money, I put towards my creative endeavours is worthless. That I have no right to expect compensation for things I create that other people use.
You have to provide the claim that restricting what I can do with your media is morally acceptable.
Because people have a right to be compensated for the fruits of their labor that other people use.
Or if you prefer, because people have a right to make and enter contracts. If I make a piece of art, or software, or whatever, available to download with a contract describing what you are and are not allowed to do with that software. When you take possession of the software, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by the contract. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you're free to not download the software.
Most of us don't get paychecks for work we've done decades ago (thanks to our ludicrously long copyright duration), so I have trouble sympathizing with your plight.
First of all, I didn't say anything about the age of the art and writing, so that's irrelevant. Most of the work I'm making money from was produced in the past 2 years.
Second, you have trouble sympathizing with the fact that having put decades of practice and training, and thousands of dollars into developing skills that I thought I would be able to make a living with only to have some entitled, self richeous ass like yourself come along and say I have no right to expect any compensation for my work might upset me? I have no words to describe how narrowly self-centered that is.
Is it morally acceptable/should it be legal, in your view, for the electronic media devices I use to have spyware installed on them that I cannot remove so that copyright holders can remotely control access to my copies of their work? Is it still moral when this spyware inevitably interferes with other non-copyright-infringement things I want to do with those devices?
No, and I never said it was, but you're using a tu quoque fallacy. Their immoral or illegal actions to try to stop your immoral or illegal actions doesn't make you actions any less immoral or illegal.
-
The argument between Ironchew and JohnE is pointless because it is possible to sell content without DRM or other BS bundled in.
-
How does that make it pointless? We both agree that DRM crap has gone way overboard, but that doesn't negate copyright law.
-
Well, there's no real simple answer to this kind of thing. Like a lot of stuff in life, there's far too many "what ifs" to simply create a single, easy solution that applies to everything.
When it comes to works that have a physical medium, like video games and movies, the question of how much profit is lost depends on how many copies are made. If a game is no longer being produced and all copies have been sold to their distributors, how much money is the creator actually receiving from their work? Game developers make a grand total of zero dollars off of used game sales; once every copy has been sold to its first owner, that money is it. Many old games (a category that includes even 7th generation games, as we're almost 10 years past the release of the Xbox 360) are no longer being made new, and thus no money is going to the developer despite these games still existing and being played.
Digital distribution is a whole 'nother ballgame, as it's essentially a never-ending "print run". The developers that get harmed the most by piracy are indie developers who sell their software exclusively online, as their market dries up massively if everyone can easily get themselves a free copy. The only way to counter loss of sales to piracy is to either make the game impossible to crack (which can't be done, no matter how hard the biggest security companies try) or increase the price of the game to make more money from each individual sale. And because increasing the price too much past what the market will willingly pay will cause a loss in sales as well, small-time developers who exclusively distribute online need to be very careful about how they charge people.
Regardless, Ironchew is an idiotic baby. Whether or not piracy is inherently less harmful than strapping rocket launchers to your car doesn't matter, and nobody cares about that kind of bullshit; if the doge had any sense, he'd realize exactly what kind of logical fallacy he was committing while pretending to be logical. I'll wait for him to figure it out.
Moreover, shifting the focus to spyware and secretly installing counter-piracy software on computers is a red herring that has nothing to do with the debate at hand: is it actually defensible to pirate games, software, and films in such a way that it denies profit of any kind to the creator? Whether or not DRM is morally defensible doesn't make piracy morally defensible any more than you can claim that it's okay to punch babies because the NSA spies on us: other people doing bad or morally gray things doesn't make what you do any better.
Yes, I do pirate games. But I do so in ways that do not deny money to the creator: either I've already paid for a copy and I need to get a new one for whatever reason, the game is out of print or the developer simply doesn't exist and thus I'm not denying them a paycheck, or I'm only demoing the game on my system and do not plan on keeping it and will actually willingly purchase the game if it runs and I want to permanently have it around to play. It's difficult to say "moral piracy" with a straight face, but I try to be careful about not stepping on artists. And I absolutely do NOT try to deny indie developers their money, as God knows my individual sale counts more for them than it does for Bethesda Softworks.
-
*roasts marshmallows* The issue of piracy is an interesting and complex one, so I believe the best course of action is to scream at each other until the problem magically solves itself. </sarcasm>
The way I see it, it's like smoking, drinking, and other "bad" things: if you don't like it, don't do it. Understand that pirating/not pirating does not automatically mean someone is more or less moral than someone who makes another choice.
-
On a related note, I think that the harmful, counterproductive reaction companies have had to piracy (trying to stop it through DRM and restricting legal users, for example) are less indicative of the negative effects of piracy (i.e. "The companies wouldn't have to be so mean and morally questionable if those pirates would stop pirating!) and more indicative of the inability of the ones in charge to sit down and weigh the consequences of their actions, instead choosing to simply target everyone who COULD become a "bad guy" and hope that it works.
-
How does that make it pointless? We both agree that DRM crap has gone way overboard, but that doesn't negate copyright law.
The ultimate goal of copyright law is to benefit the public, not to ensure income for content owners. The latter is only an incentive meant to further increase creativity for the public domain. I approach copyright mainly from the perspective of a programmer, and my gripes with how it applies to other media is mainly limited to its ridiculously long duration that I can't see having any benefit to the public domain at all. It may be legal, but it can be unjust at the same time.
Or if you prefer, because people have a right to make and enter contracts. If I make a piece of art, or software, or whatever, available to download with a contract describing what you are and are not allowed to do with that software. When you take possession of the software, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by the contract. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you're free to not download the software.
Speaking from some experience here with programming; that does not communicate the whole picture. I have to be able to see and easily understand the license before downloading something to either know what I'm getting myself into or know why I don't want to download it. Even then, license terms are not a blank cheque and you don't get to impose unreasonable terms for simply using the software. Even the GNU GPL only makes restrictions on the terms of redistribution, which copyright normally does not allow at all.
If the license terms are only contained in a clickthrough EULA that is in no way obvious until I have already bought the software (and very likely do not have first-sale rights on), I have entered the contract under duress and I am under no obligation to follow the license terms contained therein.
-
The way I see it, it's like smoking, drinking, and other "bad" things: if you don't like it, don't do it. Understand that pirating/not pirating does not automatically mean someone is more or less moral than someone who makes another choice.
Well, no, actually. Drinking and smoking for the most part only harms you. Piracy, on the other hand, is harmful to other people's livelihoods. To suggest that it's not inherently immoral is asinine.
-
The way I see it, it's like smoking, drinking, and other "bad" things: if you don't like it, don't do it. Understand that pirating/not pirating does not automatically mean someone is more or less moral than someone who makes another choice.
Well, no, actually. Drinking and smoking for the most part only harms you. Piracy, on the other hand, is harmful to other people's livelihoods. To suggest that it's not inherently immoral is asinine.
Making blanket statements like that is asinine and in no way furthers understanding about the role copyright should play in society.
-
The way I see it, it's like smoking, drinking, and other "bad" things: if you don't like it, don't do it. Understand that pirating/not pirating does not automatically mean someone is more or less moral than someone who makes another choice.
I'm sorry, but yes it does. Maybe not if you do in such a way as to try not to deny the creators sales, as several folks have outlined. But yeah.
* * *
Ichy: Copyright law exists for BOTH reasons, to protect the rights (and incomes) of the creators AND to provide a means for material to enter the public domain. And yes, the laws have gone too far over to one side, but that doesn't mean we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that content creators have no rights.
As you said, copyright protections for content creators are supposed to encourage and facilitate that content being created. What you're proposing is to take away that incentive. And you don't think that would have a negative impact on the production of said content?
One other thing. There is a tendency in these debates for the pro-pirates to focus their richeous anger at faceless, nebulous, big businesses, and present themselves as champions of the little guy. But copyright protections go both ways. Case in point: My uncle-in-law is an artist of some repute. A big name clothing maker stuck one of his designs on a tshirt and started selling it, without his knowledge (at first, he found out about it). Without copyright laws, or with dramatically stripped down laws, he would have had no recourse, nor does he have the resouces to compete with them in the clothing marketplace. As much as big businesses fight for stronger copyright, going without would in many ways, hurt independent artists and small businesses much worse.
-
The way I see it, it's like smoking, drinking, and other "bad" things: if you don't like it, don't do it. Understand that pirating/not pirating does not automatically mean someone is more or less moral than someone who makes another choice.
Well, no, actually. Drinking and smoking for the most part only harms you. Piracy, on the other hand, is harmful to other people's livelihoods. To suggest that it's not inherently immoral is asinine.
Making blanket statements like that is asinine and in no way furthers understanding about the role copyright should play in society.
I can't be arsed trying to explain this to you yet again, as it's proven to be about as useful as yelling at a brick wall. Just re-read JohnE's posts and see if that gets anywhere close to penetrating your entitlement/hero complex. We all know it wont, but hey, no harm in trying, right?
-
Ichy: Copyright law exists for BOTH reasons, to protect the rights (and incomes) of the creators AND to provide a means for material to enter the public domain. And yes, the laws have gone too far over to one side, but that doesn't mean we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that content creators have no rights.
As you said, copyright protections for content creators are supposed to encourage and facilitate that content being created. What you're proposing is to take away that incentive. And you don't think that would have a negative impact on the production of said content?
I didn't say all incentive should be taken away from content creators. What I said was that copyright duration should be scaled back down to limits reasonable for the medium in question (I claimed 10 years for video games was fair). Specifically in regards to software, I believe the government should only grant copyright protection if the developer hands over the source code to the Library of Congress. That way the software and its source, when they enter the public domain, can be more useful on newer platforms.
-
That's not what you were saying earlier, but okay.
-
Ichy: Copyright law exists for BOTH reasons, to protect the rights (and incomes) of the creators AND to provide a means for material to enter the public domain. And yes, the laws have gone too far over to one side, but that doesn't mean we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that content creators have no rights.
As you said, copyright protections for content creators are supposed to encourage and facilitate that content being created. What you're proposing is to take away that incentive. And you don't think that would have a negative impact on the production of said content?
I didn't say all incentive should be taken away from content creators.
Considering you just said that you'd pirate JohnE's artwork in a heartbeat, yeah you kinda did.
The only thing I disagree with in Chitoryu's post was that you're an idiotic baby. That's an insult to idiots and babies. They don't have the opportunity to know better. You, however, do. You just won't take it.
-
Ichy: Copyright law exists for BOTH reasons, to protect the rights (and incomes) of the creators AND to provide a means for material to enter the public domain. And yes, the laws have gone too far over to one side, but that doesn't mean we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that content creators have no rights.
As you said, copyright protections for content creators are supposed to encourage and facilitate that content being created. What you're proposing is to take away that incentive. And you don't think that would have a negative impact on the production of said content?
I didn't say all incentive should be taken away from content creators.
Considering you just said that you'd pirate JohnE's artwork in a heartbeat, yeah you kinda did.
The only thing I disagree with in Chitoryu's post was that you're an idiotic baby. That's an insult to idiots and babies. They don't have the opportunity to know better. You, however, do. You just won't take it.
lol Magus. You always have to have the last word in these shitfests.
I never once said "pirate" or "piracy" in this thread before this post. You must be misinterpreting what I was trying to convey.
-
The only thing I disagree with in Chitoryu's post was that you're an idiotic baby. That's an insult to idiots and babies. They don't have the opportunity to know better. You, however, do. You just won't take it.
Zach, petty insults are uncalled for.
-
Ichy: Copyright law exists for BOTH reasons, to protect the rights (and incomes) of the creators AND to provide a means for material to enter the public domain. And yes, the laws have gone too far over to one side, but that doesn't mean we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that content creators have no rights.
As you said, copyright protections for content creators are supposed to encourage and facilitate that content being created. What you're proposing is to take away that incentive. And you don't think that would have a negative impact on the production of said content?
I didn't say all incentive should be taken away from content creators.
Considering you just said that you'd pirate JohnE's artwork in a heartbeat, yeah you kinda did.
The only thing I disagree with in Chitoryu's post was that you're an idiotic baby. That's an insult to idiots and babies. They don't have the opportunity to know better. You, however, do. You just won't take it.
lol Magus. You always have to have the last word in these shitfests.
Look who's talking.
I never once said "pirate" or "piracy" in this thread before this post. You must be misinterpreting what I was trying to convey.
Yeah I'm going to call bullshit.
JohnE asked if you think people should pirate his stuff. You said, "Short answer: Yes"
There isn't any ambiguity here.
The only thing I disagree with in Chitoryu's post was that you're an idiotic baby. That's an insult to idiots and babies. They don't have the opportunity to know better. You, however, do. You just won't take it.
Zach, petty insults are uncalled for.
So chitoryu calls him a "idiotic baby", you say nothing. I change the nature of the insult and you jump on me.
Seems legit.
That being said, I'll agree that I was wrong to insult him here. This isn't the forum for it.
I do, however, disagree on one thing: petty insults are called for ;)
-
I said that to you because I've seen you, as a mod, get on people for far less. Second your post was a blatant ad hominem. Third, I didn't bother to read chit. Is that legit enough for you?
-
I didn't say all incentive should be taken away from content creators.
Considering you just said that you'd pirate JohnE's artwork in a heartbeat, yeah you kinda did.
Well, he assumed John was only doing art for a longer time then two years. But he did call it Piracy.
-
I said that to you because I've seen you, as a mod, get on people for far less. Second your post was a blatant ad hominem. Third, I didn't bother to read chit. Is that legit enough for you?
First of all, an ad hominem is when you try to dismiss someone's argument on the basis of attacking their character. It is not synonymous with "petty insult". What I did was I pointed out the gaping flaw in his argument, then resorted to the petty insults. It's an argumentative tactic that FSTDT was once quite well known for, so don't get self-righteous with me when I have seen you do this exact thing in the past.
Second of all, I already agreed with you that this wasn't the place to do it. I acknowledge my mistakes. Furthermore, I am no longer a mod, and one of those reasons is that I didn't feel like I was that good of a moderator.
Third, you didn't even need to read Chit's post. I mentioned that I disagreed with him on one point. That gave you all the information you needed to understand that I wasn't the first to bring it up. I understand you tl;dr's Chit's post, but maybe you could hone your reading comprehension so that you can read four sentences more thoroughly? I don't use words pointlessly, every word I use has a meaning, and it bothers me when people clearly miss these words so they can misinterpret my posts as they see fit.
Finally, the entire reason I did it was to change an ableist insult to a non-ableist insult, because quite frankly I think that it's more clever to insult someone without implying that they are mentally defiient.
-
"I didn't say 'pirate' or 'piracy.' I just said 'Download without permission.'" Because that makes it totally different.
-
First of all, an ad hominem is when you try to dismiss someone's argument on the basis of attacking their character. It is not synonymous with "petty insult". What I did was I pointed out the gaping flaw in his argument, then resorted to the petty insults. It's an argumentative tactic that FSTDT was once quite well known for, so don't get self-righteous with me when I have seen you do this exact thing in the past.
Actually, if you read the post in which he said he would pirate John's work he qualified it with "many of us don't get paid for work we did years ago." So what you did was strawman his position and then resorted to petty attacks.
Second of all, I already agreed with you that this wasn't the place to do it. I acknowledge my mistakes. Furthermore, I am no longer a mod, and one of those reasons is that I didn't feel like I was that good of a moderator.
The purpose of such is to show a modicum of hypocrisy and awareness. If you're calling out others for lesser insults, you shouldn't make such overt ones.
Third, you didn't even need to read Chit's post. I mentioned that I disagreed with him on one point. That gave you all the information you needed to understand that I wasn't the first to bring it up. I understand you tl;dr's Chit's post, but maybe you could hone your reading comprehension so that you can read four sentences more thoroughly? I don't use words pointlessly, every word I use has a meaning, and it bothers me when people clearly miss these words so they can misinterpret my posts as they see fit.
Believe me, Chit's post was not a TL;DR. I read plenty of longer more pointless things a day. I just generally ignore Chit's posts.
Finally, the entire reason I did it was to change an ableist insult to a non-ableist insult, because quite frankly I think that it's more clever to insult someone without implying that they are mentally defiient.
Idiot is ableist, now? Welp, you learn something new every day...
-
First of all, an ad hominem is when you try to dismiss someone's argument on the basis of attacking their character. It is not synonymous with "petty insult". What I did was I pointed out the gaping flaw in his argument, then resorted to the petty insults. It's an argumentative tactic that FSTDT was once quite well known for, so don't get self-righteous with me when I have seen you do this exact thing in the past.
Actually, if you read the post in which he said he would pirate John's work he qualified it with "many of us don't get paid for work we did years ago." So what you did was strawman his position and then resorted to petty attacks.
Oh don't tell me you're actually siding with him on this matter. A lawyer, siding with an admitted pirate.
This is hilarious.
I'm just going to repeat JohnE and say that, oh yeah, downloading something without someone's permission is TOTALLY different from piracy. Right.
The only strawmen in this thread are the ones that Ironchew has constructed himself.
The purpose of such is to show a modicum of hypocrisy and awareness. If you're calling out others for lesser insults, you shouldn't make such overt ones.
Oh believe me, no one knows I'm a hypocrite more than I do. It's part of my daily routine of self-loathing.
Believe me, Chit's post was not a TL;DR. I read plenty of longer more pointless things a day. I just generally ignore Chit's posts.
Did you miss the part where that was unnecessary?
Idiot is ableist, now? Welp, you learn something new every day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/an ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence.
I'm doing it out of protest of the words "Retard" and "Autistic" being used as slurs in today's world, mostly.
-
Oh don't tell me you're actually siding with him on this matter. A lawyer, siding with an admitted pirate.
This is hilarious.
I'm just going to repeat JohnE and say that, oh yeah, downloading something without someone's permission is TOTALLY different from piracy. Right.
The only strawmen in this thread are the ones that Ironchew has constructed himself.
1. I'm not a lawyer. I never claimed to be. I'm a law student and I don't even discuss law on here because I dislike sounding haughty. Besides, this is my place to procrastinate the mountains of work I have to do, so why would I invoke legal BS?
2. Strawman me again. I never sided with him. I think he raises some points and if he weren't so quick to be straw-manned as a troll and as a pirate, maybe you (general) could find some middle ground. I'm actually sitting out of this debate, but for what it's worth, I'm indifferent. The rub for me is your insults because as of late, you've been rather aggressive to people you dislike.
-
Oh don't tell me you're actually siding with him on this matter. A lawyer, siding with an admitted pirate.
This is hilarious.
I'm just going to repeat JohnE and say that, oh yeah, downloading something without someone's permission is TOTALLY different from piracy. Right.
The only strawmen in this thread are the ones that Ironchew has constructed himself.
1. I'm not a lawyer. I never claimed to be. I'm a law student and I don't even discuss law on here because I dislike sounding haughty. Besides, this is my place to procrastinate the mountains of work I have to do, so why would I invoke legal BS?
2. Strawman me again. I never sided with him. I think he raises some points and if he weren't so quick to be straw-manned as a troll and as a pirate, maybe you (general) could find some middle ground. I'm actually sitting out of this debate, but for what it's worth, I'm indifferent. The rub for me is your insults because as of late, you've been rather aggressive to people you dislike.
How about the fact that he's "strawmanned" as a troll because he has outright admitted to being a troll?
Besides, you really are the last person who should be telling me that I'm "aggressive towards people I dislike". You are the queen of passive-aggressive attacks on people you dislike, I just cut out the "passive" bullshit when I happen to be sick of bullshit... quite like I am now.
Your hypocrisy rubs me in all the wrong ways.
I've known for a long time I'm not a nice person. I'm pretty much a product of the forums in that regard, where certain people are celebrated for being "not nice" to certain people based on arbitrary measures. That and shitty life circumstances.
But hey, this is the one place where I'm allowed to be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, so WHEN IN FUCKING ROME.
-
I guess it was hopelessly optimistic of me not to put this thread straight in F&B when I split it.
Can everyone chill the fuck down with the personal attacks? Called for or not, this is not the place.