View Full Version : Common misconceptions
theblackknight
09-03-12, 23:27
Talk about your most hated here. Can be of any topic.
Please stop telling us wikipedia is written by anyone and that anyone can change the articles. This is simply not true. It's no longer 2007. I dare you to go sign in, and rewrite something and see how long it sticks. Just like the rest of the internet,have a high IQ and a strong bullshit filter and you can find a lot of great work on wiki.
OK, I'll play.
The misconception that theft of intellectual property is not really stealing.
That's right, people who buy bootleg music and videos are really just common thieves. That includes all of the people who do it while deployed because it is available at the Haji-shop, or because they feel that the hardships of military service entitles them to it.
This also includes all the people who show-up at their doctor or hospital with no intention of paying their full bill. I've got an idea, try walking out of Walmart with at 52" LCD TV and try to negotiate what you think is a fair price.
For many people, their intellectual work pays the bills and puts diapers on the baby. Using their services without compensation is the same as picking their pocket.
OK, I'll play.
The misconception that theft of intellectual property is not really stealing.
When I was a kid I used to record songs off the radio with my cassette player. Was that stealing?
When I was a kid I used to record songs off the radio with my cassette player. Was that stealing?
Yes. Theft does not have to be large in scale or consciously malicious to be wrong. The whole idea is that people have parents to point out when activities that seems innocent are actually harming others. Granted, there is no moral equivalence between a child who does not understand that they are stealing, and an adult who is capable of deeper moral reasoning.
- An AR-15 is a machine gun.
- The common misunderstanding about the colloquial definition of the word “theory” and that of a scientific theory.
- Philosophy cannot lead to objective truth.
- Vaccinations cause autism.
- Seasons are caused by the earth being closer to the sun.
- A near miss from a .50 cal will cause bodily harm.
- The Quran promises 72 virgins for those martyred in the name of Islam.
- Eyewitness accounts constitute reliable evidence.
- A bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly and the math doesn't work.
- Catholics don't really believe that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during Communion.
- A monkey with a typewriter will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare given an infinite amount of time. (Monkeys are not random generators)
More to follow.
- The common misunderstanding about the colloquial definition of the word “theory” and that of a scientific theory.
I hate that one so much. "Oh it's just a theory"
Mother****er so is gravity
My additions,
- That the highest number on your speedometer is how fast your car can go, or that if your speedometer goes higher you have a faster car
- Premium Fuel is "better for your car"
I hate that one so much. "Oh it's just a theory"
Mother****er so is gravity
...and I don't see you jumping off buildings. :D
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 00:16
I hate that one so much. "Oh it's just a theory"
Mother****er so is gravity
as is electricity....
- The Quran promises 72 virgins for those martyred in the name of Islam.
How many do they get?
How many do they get?
The Quran mentions an unspecified amount of "houris" for all admitted into Paradise, not just martyrs.
An enterprising author of a Hadith says they'll number 72, and also, quite strangely if you ask me, that men in Paradise will have ever-erect penises and never grow tired of sexing them up.
Not all Muslims believe that this particular Hadith is especially trustworthy, and the belief is not central to Islam in any meaningful way. Obviously, if the figure was to be found in the Quran, it would be, as they believe it to be the perfect word of god.
The Quran mentions an unspecified amount of "houris" for all admitted into Paradise, not just martyrs.
An enterprising author of a Hadith says they'll number 72, and also, quite strangely if you ask me, that men in Paradise will have ever-erect penises and never grow tired of sexing them up.
Not all Muslims believe that this particular Hadith is especially trustworthy, and the belief is not central to Islam in any meaningful way.
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that brings me to my next hated misconception: the notion that a bed full of 72 virgins is the most fun a man can have.
Personally, I'd prefer to have a mixture of 40 virgins and 32 of the nastiest whores this side of Bangkok :D.
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that brings me to my next hated misconception: the notion that a bed full of 72 virgins is the most fun a man can have.
Personally, I'd prefer to have a mixture of 40 virgins and 32 of the nastiest whores this side of Bangkok :D.
I'd prefer we also start spreading the misconception that the 72 virgins will also come with 72 mothers-in-law. Maybe that will cut down on terrorism.
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 00:39
I'd prefer we also start spreading the misconception that the 72 virgins will also come with 72 mothers-in-law. Maybe that will cut down on terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq5bw3BhOCI
• People who choose to believe in a deity, God, or creation, and who pray, are intellectually inferior, or troubled, naive, or otherwise damaged.
• Conservatives are warmongers.
• Conservatives are so blindly pro-corporation that they can't recognize crony-capitalism when they see it, or don't believe such a phenomenon actually exists.
• Federal Agents have better training, are more switched on (alert), are more perceptive to detail than local LEOs.
• Having a security clearance is awesome
• Mitt Romney is drastically different from Obama
• If the Euro collapses, it'll mean blue skies and rainbows for the USD.
• Chrysler (Jeep) makes shitty vehicles that are prone to have massive mechanical issues, particularly with their transmissions.
• You cannot learn ANYTHING whatsoever about real-life gun-fighting by playing a good FPS game like Battlefield or Counter Strike.
That's all for now
• People who choose to believe in a deity, God, or creation, and who pray, are intellectually inferior, or troubled, naive, or otherwise damaged.
• Conservatives are warmongers.
• Conservatives are so blindly pro-corporation that they can't recognize crony-capitalism when they see it, or don't believe such a phenomenon actually exists.
• Having a security clearance is awesome
SMETNA, I don't even disagree with any of these things, and I SURELY do not want to derail this thread and get into another religious war or similar pissing match.
But the above are subjective statements. The idea of a misconception deals with incorrect statements about objective truth-claims, like numbers, officially espoused positions, and definitions. If we were talking about "opinions that I disagree with" and not "misconceptions," they'd be perfectly valid. But misconceptions are objectively false extrapolations from raw data, not subjective opinions.
For example, some conservatives are war-mongers and some are not. Now, you COULD quantify your claim by polling people who identify as "conservative" about war-related issues. But then you run into varying conceptions of what it means to be a conservative. People can self-identify in the same group but believe wildly different things. Then, you have to somehow quantify what it means to be a war-monger. Is there a threshold for supporting foreign intervention that makes one a war-monger, etc?
Neither the statement "conservatives are war-mongers," nor the assertion "conservatives are NOT war-mongers" fall under the realm of a misconception. You could at most argue that one of them stems from faulty reasoning about subjective knowledge.
Take a look at this list of common misconceptions that I found; there are no subjective opinions, just statements about facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
SMETNA, I don't even disagree with any of these things, and I SURELY do not want to derail this thread and get into another religious war or similar pissing match.
Uh, in all fairness, the criteria to be a virgin is somewhat subjective. For example, there are born again virgins and people who've had vaginoplasty. I even knew a girl who was willing to take it in the ass all day, but try to put it in the vageen - oh no. I guess she is still a virgin too.
So, where do you get off criticizing a man for listing subjective misconceptions when you are talking about something as wishy washy as 72 virgins?
On second thought, I say we stop being ridiculous with our definitions.
Uh, in all fairness, the criteria to be a virgin is somewhat subjective. For example, there are born again virgins and people who've had vaginoplasty. I even knew a girl who was willing to take it in the ass all day, but try to put it in the vageen - oh no. I guess she is still a virgin too.
So, where do you get off criticizing a man for listing subjective misconceptions when you are talking about something as wishy washy as 72 virgins?
I'm not really criticizing him in a hostile way, or "getting off," first of all. Second, the 72 virgins statement was qualified by being in the Quran. The Quran doesn't specify ANY number of virgins, therefore the statement is objectively false, regardless of what it means to be a virgin.
On second thought, I say we stop being ridiculous with our definitions.
Fair, but counting political opinions as misconceptions equals dead thread. Might as well just be "what do you disagree with anybody about?" But no more from me.
I'd hope that you would notice I sometimes illustrate the absurd with absurdity.
Pretty much everything listed so far has been subjective.
Not everything is true or untrue, right or wrong.
"Eyewitness accounts constitute reliable evidence." - subjective
Plenty of DA's, defense attorneys, jurors, convicted and exonerated persons could argue that.
Enough discussing what the meaning of "is" is. Back to the topic
I do see your point a0.
I was thinking of the 100,000,000+ Americans who might believe that conservative=warmonger. But some conservatives are.
Then you get into "well, then they're not actually true conservatives", and the discussion heads that way.
So you make a good point about subjective opinions.
I do see your point a0.
I was thinking of the 100,000,000+ Americans who might believe that conservative=warmonger. But some conservatives are.
Then you get into "well, then they're not actually true conservatives", and the discussion heads that way.
So you make a good point about subjective opinions.
Yea, and now that we're singing Kumbaya, my eyewitness account statement could also be considered subjective as you rightly pointed out. In some cases, it can obviously be very accurate. I only included it because multiple studies have shown that eyewitness accounts (for which there is only one definition - someone observing an event through their physical senses) similar in nature to those in common criminal cases are inaccurate over 50% of the time in areas of substantial importance to the case. So I should have qualified the statement a lot better and been more specific. Apologies for the derail.
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 05:15
Things I see and hear on a daily basis that are factually incorrect assumptions:
all black men have enormous "gifts from the lord"
guns kill people
Tyler Perry is funny
people that have a visible handicap are exempt from being called out if they act like an asshole
there is a "glass ceiling" for female and minority employees
reality tv is actually real
if it says it has 250gb, it really has 250gb
If I don't like something, I should be able to bitch until no one likes it
Women are protected, they are never to be hit by males, regardless if she is specifically escalating the altercation, however if the female strikes the male it is indeed his own fault
A woman can do anything a man can do
If a man sleeps around its applauded, but if a woman does shes a whore
All men are cheaters, dogs, assholes, _____ insert pejorative here
Giving birth is the worst pain you could ever imagine, substantially more so than a traumatic amputation by an IED right?
Chivalry is dead
You only live once... because you and you alone somehow know exactly what happens when we die, right?
There's no difference between murder and state execution, abortion , etc. etc.....
Nuclear Power is dangerous, despite the fact it has been on aircraft, ships, submarines, and land without one substantial incident in the US in over 60 years
Swearing is just proof of a lack of intellect
Having rims on my car that are worth more than my car somehow make me matter in life
Violence solves nothing
Fat women need love too
Marijuana is a gateway drug
You didn't build that
The customer is always right
Relationships are work
READING IS FUN
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
JUSTICE IS BLIND
AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND
YES WE CAN
MONEY CANT BUY HAPPINESS
PIMPIN AINT EASY
IF YOU DON'T GO TO COLLEGE YOU WONT AMOUNT TO SHIT
AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
and most importantly:
http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/t403/jwmassaro/large.png
WHEN ROMNEY DID THAT.. HE MADE.... HE MADE ME SICK....
People who don't love every single thing about America and would not merrily eat the corn out of Uncle Sam's crap should
MOVE
TO
CANADA!!
:jester:
Magic_Salad0892
09-04-12, 05:43
Things I hear on a daily basis that are factually incorrect assumptions:
Tyler Perry is funny
Win..
cold drinks cool you off and warm drinks warm you up
zombies continue to move and ambulate even after being stripped or decaying to the point of losing relevant muscles
evil black rifles are more dangerous than 'conventional' rifles
supressors silence
space is the final frontier
ffhounddog
09-04-12, 08:16
That making a copy of a DVD that you own is illegal because of the Warning you have on the DVD.
If you bought it you can make a copy for yourself. I do this with my Disney Movies. Most are in vault.
" all black men have enormous "gifts from the lord"
My Fiance is Black and she gives me props for mine and I am a white guy.
Most hated misconception:
There is some sort of "social contract" that I am a party to which obligates me to submit to government theft of my income which is redistributed to the parasitic class (welfare, section 8 housing, bogus disability, etc.).
My motto: Work or starve.
" all black men have enormous "gifts from the lord"
.
Did you ever wonder why there are no porn films starring Gary Coleman?
I am sure more will come to the front of my brain later but one misconception stands out while pondering a reply.
That in today's society if you are fat, stressed, feeling bad, or more or less if you have any kind of affliction or ailment that you or society deems not normal there is a pill to cure it.
How in the world did civilization exist before modern pharmaceutical practices? :rolleyes:
-Jax
Yes. Theft does not have to be large in scale or consciously malicious to be wrong. The whole idea is that people have parents to point out when activities that seems innocent are actually harming others. Granted, there is no moral equivalence between a child who does not understand that they are stealing, and an adult who is capable of deeper moral reasoning.
So it was illegal to record songs off the radio? How about parents recording school plays on home movies? Was that intellectual theft of the other children participating.
Did you ever wonder why there are no porn films starring Gary Coleman?
Is it because dead guys don't do porn?
He did play a midget porn mogul in 'Midgets vs. Mascots'
So it was illegal to record songs off the radio? How about parents recording school plays on home movies? Was that intellectual theft of the other children participating.
I have not mentioned the legality of recording songs off the radio because I'm not a lawyer or up to speed on copyright laws. I'd imagine there are some "fair use" principles that come into play with individuals recording single songs for personal listening. Thus, there are plenty of actions that are legal, but not moral or proper. There are also cases of petty theft (such as kids ripping songs or stealing a piece of candy) that go unprosecuted due to the trivial nature of the offense and the expense of enforcing those laws.
When it comes to school plays, it is not theft if the material is not copyrighted and if the play's producers (i.e. the school) give the parents permission to record the play. I'd image that the vast majority of actors in a school play are uncompensated, and participate with the understanding that their performance may be recorded. The same goes for school sports events, band performances, and graduation unless the school expressly forbids the recordings.
There are exceptions to this such as the rare instance where a school plans to make its own recordings of an event and sell them - usually for some charitable benefit or to cover the cost of an expensive production. Audience recordings under these circumstances would then cross the lines into theft.
I hope my answers to your questions helped to solve some of the ethical conflicts that have haunted you since childhood. Going forward, it might be best for you to PM me with future examples so that we don't bog down the thread with minutia.
I have not mentioned the legality of recording songs off the radio because I'm not a lawyer or up to speed on copyright laws. I'd imagine there are some "fair use" principles that come into play with individuals recording single songs for personal listening. Thus, there are plenty of actions that are legal, but not moral or proper. There are also cases of petty theft (such as kids ripping songs or stealing a piece of candy) that go unprosecuted due to the trivial nature of the offense and the expense of enforcing those laws.
When it comes to school plays, it is not theft if the material is not copyrighted and if the play's producers (i.e. the school) give the parents permission to record the play. I'd image that the vast majority of actors in a school play are uncompensated, and participate with the understanding that their performance may be recorded. The same goes for school sports events, band performances, and graduation unless the school expressly forbids the recordings.
There are exceptions to this such as the rare instance where a school plans to make its own recordings of an event and sell them - usually for some charitable benefit or to cover the cost of an expensive production. Audience recordings under these circumstances would then cross the lines into theft.
I hope my answers to your questions helped to solve some of the ethical conflicts that have haunted you since childhood. Going forward, it might be best for you to PM me with future examples so that we don't bog down the thread with minutia.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is "intellectual property" has the same problem as most other "art" when you try and establish ownership.
If I want to play the national anthem to promote something, I suppose I have to get permission from the "intellectual property" owner. But is it really the "intellectual property" of Francis Scott Key given that the music used was stolen from "The Anacreontic Song"?
Do we pay royalties or use fees to the decedents of John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society every time we play the National Anthem? For we did much more than simply record it from the radio.
It is absurd that one can own a word, tune or any other artistic "creation."
During the London Olympics, the Olympic Cafe had to change their name while the Olympics were there. Exactly HOW did the IOC come to own a word like "Olympic" when it predates the modern IOC by centuries and is now common to almost all cultures. It is as absurd as owning the name Hercules or Zues.
If I paint a copy of the Mona Lisa it is my own original artwork. But if I photograph it or otherwise reproduce it then I have violated ownership rights. And in some cases, even my original work can be considered a violation. If a recognized master paints the moon and the stars, does he now have the rights of "intellectual property" with respect to that image? What if his view is truly unique and specific such as the solar nursery? How is that image any less true "intellectual property" than the Mona Lisa?
The problem is "intellectual property" is not a tangible item and it is hard to regulate ideas and realizations. If I invent a word and it enters common usage, it is mine. I created it, nobody would know it if it were not for me. But I will be owed NOTHING regardless of how many people use it, even if they use it on the radio. But if I sing the word in a song, somehow that gives me a right to ownership that even creating the word does not. So another person could sing my word in their song and end up with "intellectual property" rights that even I do not enjoy. It is even possible that I, as the creator of the word, would no longer be allowed to officially use the word without obtaining rights from the singer of my word.
So we are debating whether the law should provide intellectual property protection or not?
OK, I'll play.
The misconception that theft of intellectual property is not really stealing.
That's right, people who buy bootleg music and videos are really just common thieves. That includes all of the people who do it while deployed because it is available at the Haji-shop, or because they feel that the hardships of military service entitles them to it.
This also includes all the people who show-up at their doctor or hospital with no intention of paying their full bill. I've got an idea, try walking out of Walmart with at 52" LCD TV and try to negotiate what you think is a fair price.
For many people, their intellectual work pays the bills and puts diapers on the baby. Using their services without compensation is the same as picking their pocket.
I've got an idea, how about doctors post the actual price of their services, rather than waiting till services are rendered to inform the consumer? Even if Wal-mart didn't have a single price on display, you'd still have the option of walking away without it when it rang up at the register. Try that the next time you go to the doctor. :(
For my part, I can't stand the misconception that a "Zero Tolerance" policy is fair. In what universe is that? :mad:
Affirmative action helps people.
So we are debating whether the law should provide intellectual property protection or not?
No, I'm pointing out the problems with such ideas at their very foundation. The law is a completely different thing, often irrelevant to the issue. We once had laws that said that rifles which were otherwise identical were illegal if one had bayonet lugs or flash hiders but the other did not.
So we are debating whether the law should provide intellectual property protection or not?
Surprisingly, it appears that we are. :confused:
I've got an idea, how about doctors post the actual price of their services, rather than waiting till services are rendered to inform the consumer? Even if Wal-mart didn't have a single price on display, you'd still have the option of walking away without it when it rang up at the register. Try that the next time you go to the doctor. :(
Most doctors offices will provide the prices of routine visits and procedures for people who are "self-pay" ahead of those services being rendered. All you have to do is ask. This is not commonly done because most of us participate in healthcare plans that have pre-negotiated pricing with preferred providers. An imperfect analogy would be: I can buy a Glock 22 from Grant for about $500 delivered, but the FBI gets their pistols at an even bigger cost savings for buying in bulk (granted, they are not going through a distributor).
It gets murky when you are talking about in-patient services since you have to factor in hospital fees, provider fees, heterogeneity of care for similar services, etc. In addition, emergency services cannot be handled in the manner which you describe because EMTALA prevents hospitals from delaying a medical screening exam to negotiate payment or even collect payment information. In fact, hospitals can be fined under EMTALA for publishing prices that might be designed to discourage the uninsured from seeking a medical screening exam. For example, a hospital publishing a price list in the ER waiting room that lists: "Evaluation for chest pain = $2000 would be a clear cut EMTALA violation if poor patients were then leaving without being seen because they knew they could not afford the $2K.
Finally, I have no problem taking care of the truly poor who have a legitimate emergency. Nothing makes me feel better to help someone who is destitute due to no real fault of their own (think Down's Syndrome, ALS, paralysis, etc.) who comes to the emergency department with a problem that cannot reasonably be handled in another setting such as a free clinic. These people are not stealing from me, and I give my services freely and without regret. Sadly, this situation represents less than 5% of the "patients" who skip on their bill.
Here is a great article that was written by an ER doc named Edwin Leap. He illustrates this problem in a very funny way: http://edwinleap.com/blog/?p=2209
How about the mis-conception that my mother in law is really sweet and kind and not an uber, evil, diabolical, bitch.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents on the intellectual property issue.
In the context of downloading music, It don't believe its stealing. When you steal from someone, you cause them to have less in some way. Here's the problem: I don't buy music and I never will. I've never felt the need to spend money on CDs/records/songs. I will listen to the radio as long as its free before I buy an album/record or song. Therefore, if I download music for my own personal enjoyment I have not caused the artist/record company to have less by taking potential profits. They would have never gotten any of my money anyway.
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 16:16
if there is such a thing as "intellectual property" then someone explain how places like Gamestop are still in business... or how you can purchase second hand movies or books... that's all stealing because the original maker did not receive funds for every single person that used it, only the first... and each subsequent transaction was a private sale with the "intellectual property owner" receiving nothing
that's like claiming you own a verbal statement, and every person that says it, is indebted to you
its like claiming you still own a fart after its left your ass cheeks and entered the nose of the pedestrian behind you... and then claiming they stole your fart....
once that property leaves your "intellect" and is in the actual physical outside world, that shit is up for grabs.... if the radio is free, and a certain song is being played on the radio, then there is no difference if you listen to it there or if you download it...
lets pretend you own a movie, but you want a version to put on your computer, you already own the intellectual property so therefore if you download it there is no "theft" involved..
its simply the flow of information, there is no way to stop that, and there is no comparison between stealing a physical object and intangible things like spoken word or songs... it is data, and once it is copied, that copied data is no longer the owners property
if I lend you a movie to watch, or I lend you a book, or you come over and watch a cable tv show on my tv and you don't have cable, then you are stealing by your rationalizations...
this is all just an attempt to squeeze every bit of the money they can out of something, regardless if it is an asinine attempt at an unrealistic standard
once I pay for something, I own it, and therefore I can do whatever I want with it and that includes selling it or giving it away to who ever I want..... if not... then every single used upper for sale on this website, ****, every single thing for sale period on this site, is basically just fencing stolen property... because the original "intellectual property owner" is receiving no funds or reimbursement for any additional parties using their property...
theory and the real world are 2 different things... if you don't like the fact that people enjoy your music or movies enough to download them, then maybe you should just find an artistic medium that can't be "pirated"...
if there is such a thing as "intellectual property" then someone explain how places like Gamestop are still in business... or how you can purchase second hand movies or books... that's all stealing because the original maker did not receive funds for every single person that used it, only the first... and each subsequent transaction was a private sale with the "intellectual property owner" receiving nothing
that's like claiming you own a verbal statement, and every person that says it, is indebted to you
its like claiming you still own a fart after its left your ass cheeks and entered the nose of the pedestrian behind you... and then claiming they stole your fart....
once that property leaves your "intellect" and is in the actual physical outside world, that shit is up for grabs.... if the radio is free, and a certain song is being played on the radio, then there is no difference if you listen to it there or if you download it...
lets pretend you own a movie, but you want a version to put on your computer, you already own the intellectual property so therefore if you download it there is no "theft" involved..
its simply the flow of information, there is no way to stop that, and there is no comparison between stealing a physical object and intangible things like spoken word or songs... it is data, and once it is copied, that copied data is no longer the owners property
if I lend you a movie to watch, or I lend you a book, or you come over and watch a cable tv show on my tv and you don't have cable, then you are stealing by your rationalizations...
this is all just an attempt to squeeze every bit of the money they can out of something, regardless if it is an asinine attempt at an unrealistic standard
once I pay for something, I own it, and therefore I can do whatever I want with it and that includes selling it or giving it away to who ever I want..... if not... then every single used upper for sale on this website, ****, every single thing for sale period on this site, is basically just fencing stolen property... because the original "intellectual property owner" is receiving no funds or reimbursement for any additional parties using their property...
theory and the real world are 2 different things... if you don't like the fact that people enjoy your music or movies enough to download them, then maybe you should just find an artistic medium that can't be "pirated"...
Outstanding - spoken like a true progressive who believes in communal ownership of property. Are you sure that your name isn't Obama's Rascals? Now, I'm staring to better understand you opinions on the welfare state.
There are 2 separate issues that we are discussing when it comes to intellectual property. The first which I brought up was the payment for professional intellectual services rendered as typified by a doctor being compensated for treating a patient or a musician charging admission to a concert. People who receive services from a doctor without paying their bill are stealing, as are people who sneak into a concert, use counterfeit tickets to gain access to movies, etc. This type of intellectual property theft is really nothing more than coerced uncompensated labor.
You are now transitioning the discussion to a different topic which is duplication of intellectual property. Yes, you own a single movie or CD when you buy it from Blockbuster. You can play it as many times as you like for your personal enjoyment, engage in limited common use with friends, and sometimes make back-up copies for security. You can also sell that single copy that you own and make a profit. However, you cannot duplicate that movie or game in an attempt to make a profit in competition with the original producer. You also can't use that single copy for commercial purposes in competition with licensed distributors (i.e. charging admission to a neighborhood viewing of the movie that you purchased for private consumption). Do these things takes you outside the realm of common use and into illegal duplication - unless you believe in communal ownership of property.
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:08
You are now transitioning the discussion to a different topic which is duplication of intellectual property. Yes, you own a single movie or CD when you buy it from Blockbuster. You can play it as many times as you like for your personal enjoyment, engage in limited common use with friends, and sometimes make back-up copies for security. You can also sell that single copy that you own and make a profit. However, you cannot duplicate that movie or game in an attempt to make a profit in competition with the original producer. You also can't use that single copy for commercial purposes in competition with licensed distributors (i.e. charging admission to a neighborhood viewing of the movie that you purchased for private consumption).
I never stated anything about "duplication" in efforts to compete with the original commercial party. You specifically stated that recording a song from the radio for personal enjoyment is stealing.
We are not talking about specifically receiving a service and then not paying, of course going to the doctor and not paying is stealing, because you actually received a service, but when there is no consented contract of service between the parties, as with the radio, then no in fact it is not stealing.
When you go to the doctor, it specifically states payment is expected at the time services are rendered, or you are at least presented with a bill and you were made fully aware that you were receiving a service in return for compensation, however who or what presents you with a bill when you listen to the radio? There is no implied contract, with terms and conditions to which you must agree to, and thus, there is no "theft" involved by willfully refusing to pay.
You specifically stated the original creator owns the rights to the "intellectual property, and as such any use not authorized and granted by them is then to be considered stealing, that is not true.
If I can watch a movie, and then give a copy of that movie to my "friend" without receiving compensation in any commercial profit seeking fashion, and that is not considered theft, then downloading is more than legal, because someone originally paid for it, and has simply made it available for their "friends" to view or hear in a non-commercial profit seeking fashion....
but I guess now you're going to say its not legal because they just make it available to anyone and everyone right? not just their friends right? who are you or anyone else for that matter to judge what "limited common use among friends" is to be considered?
if no money is changing hands, and no one is seeking funds in a commercial manner for someone else's work, then I fail to see how this is an enforceable issue
its funny how patent laws are only applicable if I attempt to sell someone else's idea for money, however if I just simply liked the idea and made it for personal use, then I'm in the clear.... how are movies/music/etc. different....
theory and the real world are 2 different things... if you don't like the fact that people enjoy your music or movies enough to download them, then maybe you should just find an artistic medium that can't be "pirated"...
Ever read an EULA on items you purchase like software? You basically don't own shit if they say so.
@ the rest of it.
Personally, I think the intellectual property rights are a means of thwarting "for profit" distribution of someones products. Like burning six copies of your new CD and selling it to your friends for $4 a pop. You've removed 6 potential customers from the buying pool because they don't have to go out and buy it now AND you profited from this action.
Sony went bonkers a bit when they started tracking down individuals who were "filesharing" to make a point. A point that, in a nicer world, wouldn't have to be made. If you didn't work for it, pay for it, earn it... it ain't yours!
Physical property is a FAR stretch in comparison to "licensed material". Essentially, you aren't buying the physical CD, you're buying the license to keep it under their agreement, which you legally entered when you bought it. There is a difference, however slight.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents on the intellectual property issue.
In the context of downloading music, It don't believe its stealing. When you steal from someone, you cause them to have less in some way. Here's the problem: I don't buy music and I never will. I've never felt the need to spend money on CDs/records/songs. I will listen to the radio as long as its free before I buy an album/record or song. Therefore, if I download music for my own personal enjoyment I have not caused the artist/record company to have less by taking potential profits. They would have never gotten any of my money anyway.
Then, I guess it is OK for me to tap into my neighbor's TV cable to get free HBO without paying Time Warner. After all, I normally watch movies only when they come on basic cable (USA, TNT, etc.) and would not pay for HBO if I could not get it "for free." So, by your logic Time Warner Cable is really not losing anything since I would never pay their high prices...:rolleyes:
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:21
Then, I guess it is OK for me to tap into my neighbor's TV cable to get free HBO without paying Time Warner. After all, I normally watch movies only when they come on basic cable (USA, TNT, etc.) and would not pay for HBO if I could not get it "for free." So, by your logic Time Warner Cable is really not losing anything since I would never pay their high prices...:rolleyes:
do you have the consent of the person who is paying for it, i.e. your neighbors?
if so then yes..... you can more than gladly tap into their cable, however if you do so without their knowledge that is stealing
the problem is... with "illegal downloading"... you have the consent of the original party that paid for it...because they are the ones that posted it... so thus, I am not stealing from them, I am simply "borrowing from a friend"
you are trying to ad homenim and change the point of the argument to an indefensible position by bringing up things like tapping into your neighbors cable or internet without their consent when they are paying for it.... if they pay for it and say you can then there's not shit the cable company can say
do you have the consent of the person who is paying for it, i.e. your neighbors?
if so then yes..... you can more than gladly tap into their cable, however if you do so without their knowledge that is stealing
the problem is... with "illegal downloading"... you have the consent of the original party that paid for it...because they are the ones that posted it... so thus, I am not stealing from them, I am simply "borrowing from a friend"
you are trying to ad homenim and change the point of the argument to an indefensible position by bringing up things like tapping into your neighbors cable or internet without their consent when they are paying for it.... if they pay for it and say you can then there's not shit the cable company can say
I think this may be where the disconnect is located.
Music falls under licensing agreements, like software (99% certain). See post above.
Oh, and DAMN you guys type fast!!!
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:32
I think this may be where the disconnect is located.
Music falls under licensing agreements, like software (99% certain). See post above.
Oh, and DAMN YOU guys type fast!!!
and the license agreement is between the original purchaser and the manufacturer.....
that does not carry over to third parties.... if that person chooses to post an album online and thus circumvent the license agreement that they personally agreed to, then that is on them, not on me.... I never agreed to any licensing terms and thus I am in no breach of any contractual obligations whatsoever by downloading it
if they choose to break the rules by posting it, that is on them, but it stops with them because the agreement was between them personally and the manufacturer, not between everyone in the world...
my agreement is between the person posting it and myself, thus the "poster" vicariously becomes the "manufacturer" in this agreement.... if that makes any sense which I am sure you'll say it wont
basically the burden lies on the original purchaser, the person who agreed to the terms an conditions, not the third party
if that person puts the file online for download then that person is in breach and that is where it needs to be thwarted, they need to grab the people "selling the crack" so to speak... not the people "buying the crack"... the people making it available... not the ones who simply consume it
and the license agreement is between the original purchaser and the manufacturer.....
that does not carry over to third parties.... if that person chooses to post an album online and thus circumvent the license agreement that they personally agreed to, then that is on them, not on me.... I never agreed to any licensing terms and thus I am in no breach of any contractual obligations whatsoever by downloading it
if they choose to break the rules by posting it, that is on them, but it stops with them because the agreement was between them personally and the manufacturer, not between everyone in the world...
my agreement is between the person posting it and myself, thus the "poster" vicariously becomes the "manufacturer" in this agreement.... if that makes any sense which I am sure you'll say it wont
So sure you are. Absolutism leads to the dark side.. Hmmmm. /Yoda
I'm not saying, nor ever have said that I "like" it, but when you're fighting, in a court of law, someone who has billions of dollars and top drawer lawyers on their side vs. Joe Shmo music lover... well, David beat Goliath once I guess, but I'd bet the Goliath's of the world have made a few "improvements".
You didn't answer my question... have you ever read an EULA?
That question wasn't meant to be snarky. It's pretty damn amazing they level of "legal" control they impart on themselves simply by you purchasing the license. Read one or two, it's pretty interesting.
Oh, and as a side note... if you knowingly purchase or receive(read borrow) stolen goods... well, you're just as culpable as the thief who stole it. Why would it be any different in this situation? You know it's a violation of the agreement.
The license agreement doesn't just disappear because it isn't streaming off the disk. It's an exact duplication of the works on the CD regulated BY the license.
This is bordering on jumping the gap to a "Fair Use" discussion. Sorry about that.:D
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:41
That question wasn't meant to be snarky. It's pretty damn amazing they level of "legal" control they impart on themselves simply by you purchasing the license. Read one or two, it's pretty interesting.
key phrase there..... they have no legal control over you if you never purchased a license.... thus... like I said... the fault lies with the person that did indeed purchase one and chose to make that file available for download....
they cannot hold me accountable to an EULA if I never purchased a license and agreed to their EULA....
key phrase there..... they have no legal control over you if you never purchased a license.... thus... like I said... the fault lies with the person that did indeed purchase one and chose to make that file available for download....
they cannot hold me accountable to an EULA if I never purchased a license and agreed to their EULA....
Hence DRM. Everyone's favorite technology. AKA, smarter Goliath.:D
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:47
Hence DRM. Everyone's favorite technology. AKA, smarter Goliath.:D
and I agree with you... if you obtain a DRM file, and you strip the DRM... that is theft because you knowingly violated the EULA that is attached to that file
however, if you obtain a file that is already free of DRM... then.... who's to tell you where it came from or whats "legally attached" to it...
and I agree with you... if you obtain a DRM file, and you strip the DRM... that is theft because you knowingly violated the EULA that is attached to that file
however, if you obtain a file that is already free of DRM... then.... who's to tell you where it came from or whats "legally attached" to it...
While I appreciate your vigor on this issue, I'll just say this... with a clarification that it is not my strict belief, but most likely the belief of the record companies... and they're probably right.
The record companies aren't going to go broke fighting you, can you say the same?
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 17:53
While I appreciate your vigor on this issue, I'll just say this... with a clarification that it is not my strict belief, but most likely the belief of the record companies... and they're probably right.
The record companies aren't going to go broke fighting you, can you say the same?
and I commend your fighting spirit as well... let us put this issue to bed and just say... ****'em all
and I commend your fighting spirit as well... let us put this issue to bed and just say... ****'em all
****'em's all around. :D
my agreement is between the person posting it and myself, thus the "poster" vicariously becomes the "manufacturer" in this agreement.... if that makes any sense which I am sure you'll say it wont
So are you saying the first guy is actually stealing extra copies of the CD by allowing it to be downloaded to you and others like you? ... and you simply have an agreement with him that is basically a friendly share. He's just giving you a copy to hold and use with no strings attached?
Reagans Rascals
09-04-12, 18:44
So are you saying the first guy is actually stealing extra copies of the CD by allowing it to be downloaded to you and others like you? ... and you simply have an agreement with him that is basically a friendly share. He's just giving you a copy to hold and use with no strings attached?
bingo.... he purchased it, he is in violation if he shares it in a way that is not in keeping with the EULA he's agreed to...
If my friend gives me a vhs copy of a tv show that he recorded from his own tv.... but then it comes out that he has been stealing cable... am I responsible for having "stolen merchandise"?
that is on him not me....
either way... this is all academic and in no way will change the minds of those who are seeking to further the intellectual property profit making agenda, so its best to just end this now, and lets get back to the discussion at hand.. common misconceptions
If my friend gives me a vhs copy of a tv show that he recorded from his own tv.... but then it comes out that he has been stealing cable... am I responsible for having "stolen merchandise"?
That's why they go after the storage facility. The person serving them up. But no.... you would be responsible for possession of intellectual property for which you had no license. You would probably be asked to stop using/get rid of it.
But.... to stay musical and on topic....
-- That you will sound like Jimi Hendrix if you buy a Strat and a Marshall.
RancidSumo
09-04-12, 20:05
-There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" philosophy, just different opinions.
GeorgiaBoy
09-04-12, 21:47
- You are allowed to having a differing opinion than the mainstream group think on this forum.
- You don't have to contact the manufacturer first before starting a thread complaining about a product.
- The red juice in raw meat is blood
- The sun is yellow
- Your tongue has taste "zones"
- Your tongue has taste "zones"
I thought that was true.
GeorgiaBoy
09-04-12, 22:25
I thought that was true.
It is true to an extent. Some areas of the tongue are more sensitive to particular taste than others, but the ENTIRE tongue can taste all the basic tastes. But there aren't distinctive "zones".
Moose-Knuckle
09-05-12, 03:54
Off the hip at this unholy hour . . .
Beer out of a can is palatable.
The best BBQ comes from anywhere other than Texas.
Earning a degree certifies intelligence.
Its FDA approved so its good for you.
News media reports facts.
If only candidate X would win the election they would fix everything.
* BBQ is a sauce and not actually a method of cooking
* Texas wouldn't be the 3rd largest state if Alaska were cut in half
* A dog won't bite the hand that feeds it
* Cats have a long term agenda
* Children are innocent
* You can stick your elbow in your ear
* sneezing with your eyes open will blow them out of your head
Doc Safari
09-05-12, 14:45
* Work hard and you will succeed
* Everything worth having is worth working for
* The truth will out
* The best and brightest always come out on top
QuietShootr
09-05-12, 15:00
Things I see and hear on a daily basis that are factually incorrect assumptions:
A woman can do anything a man can do
If a man sleeps around its applauded, but if a woman does shes a whore
A key that opens a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by a lot of keys is a shitty lock.
You should answer question from the police if you haven't done anything wrong.
Moose-Knuckle
09-05-12, 19:05
A key that opens a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by a lot of keys is a shitty lock.
Poetry, pure poetry. :cray:
* Work hard and you will succeed
* Everything worth having is worth working for
* The truth will out
* The best and brightest always come out on top
It saddens me that I find myself in agreement with such cynicism.
* Work hard and you increase your chances of success
* Most things worth having are worth working for
* The truth will come out - only if honest people care
* The best and brightest come out on top more often than not
There, I fixed it so that they are no longer misconceptions.
It saddens me that I find myself in agreement with such cynicism.
Yeah. Such beliefs are sometimes called "Just-World Fallacies."
Variations include:
- Everything happens for a reason (true in a cause and effect sense, but what I'm talking about are those who use the phrase in the sense that they're somehow destined to live a perfect, happy life).
- It will all work out in the end.
- It was meant to be.
You usually hear stuff like this from people in positions of privilege who've run through the game of life on the "EASY" setting. Children born with AIDS into poverty, victims of acid attacks, sex-slaves, etc, all know better.
There, I fixed it so that they are no longer misconceptions.
Agree with your modifications. Where the fallacy comes in is when people think that the universe always naturally works things out for one's individual good. Human agency is the only thing that can make that happen, as you pointed out.
You usually hear stuff like this from people in positions of privilege who've run through the game of life on the "EASY" setting.
A common misconception ;).
A DPMS is just as good as a Colt.
Suwannee Tim
09-05-12, 20:28
There is a device that can reduce your electric bill by 75%. It was invented by a man who the electric companies hate. The electric companies are in a conspiracy to rip you off and have suppressed the device......until now. You can buy the device on line and make monthly payments.
9/11 was an inside job. The buildings were imploded with explosives. (I watched a documentary detailing the implosion process where the building to be imploded is very carefully prepared with beams and columns precisely weakened by torch cutting and custom made explosive charges precisely placed. How all this could be done without the building occupants noticing is never explained.)
9/11 was an inside job. It was done by the Tesla effect. The proponents show photos of oddly bent beams that are not just oddly bent beams, they are "anomalies". "Anomalies" are proof of the "Tesla effect" which has never been documented or demonstrated by a credible physicist.
And my all time favorite: Conservatives speak to each other using code words a.k.a. "dog whistles" such as: Chicago, welfare, food stamps, crime, drugs and even golf if spoken with respect to the President, all of which words really mean black which really means ni**er.
Gold is a good long-term investment strategy.
davidjinks
09-05-12, 22:53
Everyone owns a gun(s) on M4C
Everyone who owns those guns are "Operators"
Everyone is smarter than everyone else
Everyones dick is always bigger on the internet
There's about 5 percent of the people on the internet that would actually back their shit talking up in person
The other 95% would laugh it off and offer to buy you a beer or not even show up only to continue their faceflatulation on the net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.