welsh
Junkmaster
Schnicker-
Are you referring to the class action against BMG?
Are you referring to the class action against BMG?
Dark times are coming
- Thread starter KQX
- Start date
Nonsense. Millions of people all over the world use MP3 sharing services. There is a good reason why they do it - the traditional system is wrong! The prices of CDs are too high, thus lowering the accessibility of music to an average citizen, and quality of music can no longer justify steep prices. Other words, record companies are ripping their customers off! The system in place MUST change, and it WILL happen. Free exchange of music may violate copyrights, but current functioning of record industry violates basic rights of consumers to receive a product that is worth their money. Last year Croatia's telecomm (which has monopoly on fixed telephony in Croatia) raised prices of phonecalls and internet access by up to 300%! Would you consider that fair? Please forgive me for not feeling guilty when I phreak and thus steal tax impulses.Kharn said:
So OK. I'm a pirate. I'm an outlaw and I should be imprisoned for my crimes. Along with millions of other people who download MP3 music. But before you condemn everybody who dares to violate the sacred and holy copyright laws, maybe you should stop to think about the reasons why me and millions of other twisted villains like me chose to become notorious gangsters and rebels against society?
Here in Croatia we don't receive TV and radio over the cable. Here everyone is obliged by law to pay about 15$ monthly subscription to our national TV network, even if you don't own a television set or don't watch Croatian TV. And 15$ is a lot of money in Croatia. It's almost 20% of my grandmother's retirement pension. If I have to pay 15$ subscription to a television network whose programs I might not even watch, then I'll record whatever the hell I please.
Yes, it does. In fact, when downloading an MP3, I feel no more guilty than I would when smoking a joint or parking in the wrong spot. Does that mean I'm a monstrous villain without conscience?
Ratty said:
This is what it boils down to.
Smoking a joint doesn't hurt anybody.
Parking in the wrong spot annoys people, but if they're annoyed enough they'll just key your car (I did it once, to some expensive Mercedes. Owning a Mercedes doesn't mean you can park wherever the hell you please)
Piracy...It makes people lose their jobs. People that need these jobs to pay for stuff that you take for granted, because you can pirate all the pleasures in life anyway.
Piracy...It's hurting an economy which is fragile at best at the moment anyway. Nobody will be happy with piracy when it is one of the causes that hurls us into a depression.
The fact that it's a crime already makes the bad act enough. Have you ever considered why we have laws? Because people don't know shit. For that reason someone (a Brit, Magna Carta forever) decided it'd be a good idea to tell people how to live.
The law's been written by people who know a damn-shite more than you and me, it'd be a good idea to listen to these people.
Tell me Ratty, when was the last time you wondered "Why are these potatoes so expensive" or "Why is this bread so expensive" or "Why does this sofa cost this much" or "Why do I have to pay so much for this ink cartridge" or "Why the hell is my kid's Action Hero that expensive"?
Fact is, the high prices of all above-named products are exactly as unreasoneable and unfair as the high prices of CDs and DVDs, but guess what, people can't rip any of those products, hence no one complains!
I go back to my old point, human morale is a very weak thing. The moment "everyone does something" (an argument you used as well; millions do it, so it must be good. Millions of Germans hunted the Jews as well) it is apparently a good thing.
And the moment a crime such as ripping a CD becomes easy and, more important, there is no risk of punishment, everyone does it.
If you rip thousands upon thousands of CDs in your life, so many that the total value of those CDs equals the value of a new Honda Civic, then you're actually comitting as bad a crime as the man that smashes into the car-lot at night and drives away with the brand-new Civic...
Your "unfairness" argument doesn't work whichever way you look at it, Ratty. The production price/selling price ratio of CDs is little more rediculous than that of most products.
welsh
Junkmaster
It's not about how expensive the CDs are. In fact, it doesn't really matter how expensive they are.
Given a choice between paying something or paying nothing for an item of value, the rational person would choose to pay nothing. In this case, the value of the CD for purchase would have to be equal to or less than the cost of downloading the CD from the computer.
This is true if we remove any question of what is moral or not. In this I am in complete agreement with Kharn. Piracy is immoral and is akin to theft. However, if you take out morality and a person can get away with it without punishment, than its rational to do it.
One way to look at this is as a collective action problem. The collective action problem is the interest in the public in the creation of artistic works of value for which society benefits and the artist is inspired (through money) to produce more. The problem is that if anyone could avoid paying, they would, ie free ride by not paying for items of value while the rest of society does. The problem that causes is that the program falls apart. The artist has no more desire to produce, the industry which produces those items loses its incentive to produce and in the end the consuming public gets fucked because no one wants to make good cds anymore.
The way to get around this is by either creating selective incentives for people to overcome their desire to free ride, or through punishment. In the past punishment has worked through trademark,copyright, patent laws. But the ability of downloading has caused a lot more folks to free ride (not pay for tech) and more difficult to enforce intellectual property laws.
How to get back. Well if someone could come up with selective incentives that might help. For instance if one were able to set up companies in which music was downloadable for a fee, that might help control the loss of revenue to the artists and the companies. Alternatively, they might be able to find a way that music was no longer downloadable, and thus we go back to square one where the consumer exchanges value (money) for value (music). Finally there is the enforcement of punishment. That means going after the companies or entities that release music (and that would probably include colleges that allow lots of music to be downloadable from their system) to going after individual offenders of copyright laws. That means having a guy knock on your door and sue you.
There is a problem with punishment. In many countries it is damn hard go after individual violators or to get any intellectual property protection.
But if the industry sits on its hands and does nothing, than it really is fucked. The best way is to go after those who violate, to control the medium in which music is transmitted, and start coming up with new technology (which I doubt is possible).
So indeed, dark days are coming.
Given a choice between paying something or paying nothing for an item of value, the rational person would choose to pay nothing. In this case, the value of the CD for purchase would have to be equal to or less than the cost of downloading the CD from the computer.
This is true if we remove any question of what is moral or not. In this I am in complete agreement with Kharn. Piracy is immoral and is akin to theft. However, if you take out morality and a person can get away with it without punishment, than its rational to do it.
One way to look at this is as a collective action problem. The collective action problem is the interest in the public in the creation of artistic works of value for which society benefits and the artist is inspired (through money) to produce more. The problem is that if anyone could avoid paying, they would, ie free ride by not paying for items of value while the rest of society does. The problem that causes is that the program falls apart. The artist has no more desire to produce, the industry which produces those items loses its incentive to produce and in the end the consuming public gets fucked because no one wants to make good cds anymore.
The way to get around this is by either creating selective incentives for people to overcome their desire to free ride, or through punishment. In the past punishment has worked through trademark,copyright, patent laws. But the ability of downloading has caused a lot more folks to free ride (not pay for tech) and more difficult to enforce intellectual property laws.
How to get back. Well if someone could come up with selective incentives that might help. For instance if one were able to set up companies in which music was downloadable for a fee, that might help control the loss of revenue to the artists and the companies. Alternatively, they might be able to find a way that music was no longer downloadable, and thus we go back to square one where the consumer exchanges value (money) for value (music). Finally there is the enforcement of punishment. That means going after the companies or entities that release music (and that would probably include colleges that allow lots of music to be downloadable from their system) to going after individual offenders of copyright laws. That means having a guy knock on your door and sue you.
There is a problem with punishment. In many countries it is damn hard go after individual violators or to get any intellectual property protection.
But if the industry sits on its hands and does nothing, than it really is fucked. The best way is to go after those who violate, to control the medium in which music is transmitted, and start coming up with new technology (which I doubt is possible).
So indeed, dark days are coming.
Nice, but you are forgetting that I (as well as most people) don't have a choice between paying or not paying for a product. I can either download music or not have any music at all. I'm a student, I have no incomes and my parents can't afford to give 200$ or 300$ a month for new CDs. On the other hand, I refuse to deprive myself of the pleasure that comes from listening to music! I will NOT accept the fact that I must give up on something I like because it is ridiculously overpriced! Recording companies will do everything in their power to increase their profit and prevent illegal distribution of their products - it is their right. And I, on the other hand, will do everything in my power to obtain their products with as little investment as possible - it is my right! I will not break into a record store and steal the CDs, I will not rob a bank and spend the money obtained in the robbery on the CDs - I will simply connect to Internet and download the music I want. As Welsh pointed out, it is a perfectly rational thing to do - obtain something you can't normally afford for free without any sanctions whatsoever.
You all go on raving about how wrong and immoral it is what we are doing, how serious our crimes are, how much damage we cause to the industry, yadda, yadda, yadda. I will have you know several things:
1) I've never heard of anyone get arrested or sanctionized in any way for downloading MP3s. If downloading MP3s is such a serious crime, then why don't the representatives of law DO something about it? Is it perhaps because they realize that us, the copyright violators, are no more immoral than discographic companies who not only overprice their products, but also plot to increase the prices, and thus their profits, further, of course, at the consumers' expense AND undertake illegal action against not only copyright violators, but all people who dare to use MP3 format! If that falls under your definition of morale, then I fear what our world might become by the end of 21st century. Have you ever heard of something called "consumers' rights"? Even in Croatia we have that!
2) It's simply not true that MP3 sharing causes serious harm to record companies! Firstly, the way I see it, there are two prevailing categories of people who download music: first ones are people who want to download songs to hear them and make sure they are worth their money. As far as record companies are concerned, these people are a market - they will purchase the music anyway, so nobody loses. Second category are people like me, who can't afford to buy CDs so they download them and therefore obtain the music for free. This category is of no interest to the record companies, as people who fall under it don't have the money, so they don't represent a market. People who don't fall under these two categories are a minority - they download music only to burn it on CDs and sell it. These people are real pirates and I condemn them, as they seek to make profit on someone elses expense.
Secondly, the thing that hurts profits of record companies most is low quality of their products! Capitalist companies are never destroyed by thieves who break into their warehouses and steal their goods - they are destroyed by their inability to remain competitive in the harsh environment of the free market economy! In case of record companies, this inability will result from lack of product quality that would justify the product cost. If you don't believe me, look at the software companies. Software piracy is going rampage all over the world, and yet poor sales are never a result of pirate copies going around. For example, when it was first released, Warcraft III was so heavily pirated that in Croatia you could hardly find a gamer who didn't have at least one copy. And yet, the game managed to sell tremendously! Or, when Daikatana was released, I couldn't find a single pirate who would have a copy of this game (errr, at that time I didn't know how terrible it was), suggesting that Daikatana wasn't pirated all that much. Guess what, the sales in stores were a fiasco as well.
Enough said, if you refuse to even consider the arguments I have against record companies, please visit www.boycott-riaa.com and see for yourself who the REAL villains are!
P.S. Kharn, if someone started pirating sofas and selling them at half price, I'd purchase one immediately!
You all go on raving about how wrong and immoral it is what we are doing, how serious our crimes are, how much damage we cause to the industry, yadda, yadda, yadda. I will have you know several things:
1) I've never heard of anyone get arrested or sanctionized in any way for downloading MP3s. If downloading MP3s is such a serious crime, then why don't the representatives of law DO something about it? Is it perhaps because they realize that us, the copyright violators, are no more immoral than discographic companies who not only overprice their products, but also plot to increase the prices, and thus their profits, further, of course, at the consumers' expense AND undertake illegal action against not only copyright violators, but all people who dare to use MP3 format! If that falls under your definition of morale, then I fear what our world might become by the end of 21st century. Have you ever heard of something called "consumers' rights"? Even in Croatia we have that!
2) It's simply not true that MP3 sharing causes serious harm to record companies! Firstly, the way I see it, there are two prevailing categories of people who download music: first ones are people who want to download songs to hear them and make sure they are worth their money. As far as record companies are concerned, these people are a market - they will purchase the music anyway, so nobody loses. Second category are people like me, who can't afford to buy CDs so they download them and therefore obtain the music for free. This category is of no interest to the record companies, as people who fall under it don't have the money, so they don't represent a market. People who don't fall under these two categories are a minority - they download music only to burn it on CDs and sell it. These people are real pirates and I condemn them, as they seek to make profit on someone elses expense.
Secondly, the thing that hurts profits of record companies most is low quality of their products! Capitalist companies are never destroyed by thieves who break into their warehouses and steal their goods - they are destroyed by their inability to remain competitive in the harsh environment of the free market economy! In case of record companies, this inability will result from lack of product quality that would justify the product cost. If you don't believe me, look at the software companies. Software piracy is going rampage all over the world, and yet poor sales are never a result of pirate copies going around. For example, when it was first released, Warcraft III was so heavily pirated that in Croatia you could hardly find a gamer who didn't have at least one copy. And yet, the game managed to sell tremendously! Or, when Daikatana was released, I couldn't find a single pirate who would have a copy of this game (errr, at that time I didn't know how terrible it was), suggesting that Daikatana wasn't pirated all that much. Guess what, the sales in stores were a fiasco as well.
Enough said, if you refuse to even consider the arguments I have against record companies, please visit www.boycott-riaa.com and see for yourself who the REAL villains are!
P.S. Kharn, if someone started pirating sofas and selling them at half price, I'd purchase one immediately!
welsh
Junkmaster
Ratty, you're being silly.
I mean I understand that you are a poor student who wants to listen to music. I am a poor student who likes to listen to music and I have milked the BMG Music Club many times over.
But what you are doing is still immoral. If you don't like being too poor to buy a CD, get a job. That might not work in some countries with high unemployment, but in the rest of the world where unemployment is no excuse it's a job that earns you money and which allows you to buy things.
Your justifications here are pretty shallow.
IN terms of quality, piracy of copyrights reduces quality in the aggragate. Quality requires investment and what kind of idiot would invest a lot of money in something of quality when he won't gain the rewards.
Yes, individually, its rational (if immoral) for a person to get something for free rather than pay for it. But that's the problem.
If you take individual rational action and you aggragate that so that everyone is doing it, you basically end up screwing yourself. The industry is fucked, the artist is fucked and the consumer gets no cool tunes to listen too. That's why its called the collective action problem.
Take for instance raggae music. For a long time people were doing great raggae music in Jamaica, but no one knew about it. Its only when Jamaicans living in England wanted to hear raggae, and some industry types figured out that this consumer audience would buy raggae records, did the raggae music get released. Then people unfamiliar with raggae got into it and Bob Marley went epic as a world wide phenomena. His music was great before, but it was the paying audience that made him big. (There's a great article in Rolling Stone back in 1974 or 73 on this).
Its a consumer audience that gives a product value because they are willing to pay for it. Its records of sales that tell us supply and demand. Its the incentive to do well that furthers innovation and progress. Piracy totally screws that.
This is one of the problems China has in getting past low tech and into high tech goods. Any country that wants to expand into the high technology has to be able to protect intellectual property rights. If you can't the country won't break open into those markets because no one has an incentive to develop there (why, all your ideas will get freaking stolen!) If Croatia wants to do well over the next 20 years it has to get tough with intellectual property protection.
Oh and yes, there are cops who bust on grey market and pirate goods. Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong used to do very well in getting copyrights and trademarks enforced. There are big busts of pirate goods in the US. It's a crime (that's why a lot of those videos have the FBI warning on them) and people go away to prison for this.
I mean I understand that you are a poor student who wants to listen to music. I am a poor student who likes to listen to music and I have milked the BMG Music Club many times over.
But what you are doing is still immoral. If you don't like being too poor to buy a CD, get a job. That might not work in some countries with high unemployment, but in the rest of the world where unemployment is no excuse it's a job that earns you money and which allows you to buy things.
Your justifications here are pretty shallow.
IN terms of quality, piracy of copyrights reduces quality in the aggragate. Quality requires investment and what kind of idiot would invest a lot of money in something of quality when he won't gain the rewards.
Yes, individually, its rational (if immoral) for a person to get something for free rather than pay for it. But that's the problem.
If you take individual rational action and you aggragate that so that everyone is doing it, you basically end up screwing yourself. The industry is fucked, the artist is fucked and the consumer gets no cool tunes to listen too. That's why its called the collective action problem.
Take for instance raggae music. For a long time people were doing great raggae music in Jamaica, but no one knew about it. Its only when Jamaicans living in England wanted to hear raggae, and some industry types figured out that this consumer audience would buy raggae records, did the raggae music get released. Then people unfamiliar with raggae got into it and Bob Marley went epic as a world wide phenomena. His music was great before, but it was the paying audience that made him big. (There's a great article in Rolling Stone back in 1974 or 73 on this).
Its a consumer audience that gives a product value because they are willing to pay for it. Its records of sales that tell us supply and demand. Its the incentive to do well that furthers innovation and progress. Piracy totally screws that.
This is one of the problems China has in getting past low tech and into high tech goods. Any country that wants to expand into the high technology has to be able to protect intellectual property rights. If you can't the country won't break open into those markets because no one has an incentive to develop there (why, all your ideas will get freaking stolen!) If Croatia wants to do well over the next 20 years it has to get tough with intellectual property protection.
Oh and yes, there are cops who bust on grey market and pirate goods. Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong used to do very well in getting copyrights and trademarks enforced. There are big busts of pirate goods in the US. It's a crime (that's why a lot of those videos have the FBI warning on them) and people go away to prison for this.
Ratty, you have a choice to steal or not.
There is a lot of music I'd like to own, but I have to make a choice. Do I spend $15 on a CD or do I make sure we have enough money in the bank in case an emergency pops up.
Boo-hoo, so you have to do without. I think that is what is wrong with much of the world today, they don't want to do without, and they are willing to break laws to prevent them from 'suffering'.
However you try and justify it, you are wrong.
Does a person (male) who is ugly and has the choice of either raping a woman or not having sex at all have the right to rape because he doesn't want to deprive himself of sex (and he can't afford a prostitute)?
Again, my questions haven't been answered.
Additionally, did anyone read my statement that many bands allow you to download MP3s, some of full songs and others of partial songs to sample their music? Azure sent me a band called Nightwish, and I went to their site and download the content they were providing. Thus they were able to control *their* property and still successfully market it (I'm going to buy some of their CDs now, and guess what!!! I didn't have to pirate any of their music).
Ratty, I seem to recall from a post at The Order that you have a nice computer, I should go over and steal it from you because my computer sucks and I don't really have a choice of getting a better one at the moment.
There is a lot of music I'd like to own, but I have to make a choice. Do I spend $15 on a CD or do I make sure we have enough money in the bank in case an emergency pops up.
Boo-hoo, so you have to do without. I think that is what is wrong with much of the world today, they don't want to do without, and they are willing to break laws to prevent them from 'suffering'.
However you try and justify it, you are wrong.
Does a person (male) who is ugly and has the choice of either raping a woman or not having sex at all have the right to rape because he doesn't want to deprive himself of sex (and he can't afford a prostitute)?
Again, my questions haven't been answered.
Additionally, did anyone read my statement that many bands allow you to download MP3s, some of full songs and others of partial songs to sample their music? Azure sent me a band called Nightwish, and I went to their site and download the content they were providing. Thus they were able to control *their* property and still successfully market it (I'm going to buy some of their CDs now, and guess what!!! I didn't have to pirate any of their music).
Ratty, I seem to recall from a post at The Order that you have a nice computer, I should go over and steal it from you because my computer sucks and I don't really have a choice of getting a better one at the moment.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Kharn said:
Hmm. I think you're contradicting yourself a little bit here. I know this is going off the topic here, but on one hand, you mention that smoking a joint or parking in the wrong spot is okay. Then, you justify that you can break another law (vandalism--which also hurts people) because someone else is breaking the law.
However, in the next paragraph, you mention that since it is against the law we should abide by it. What is far more scary though, is that you claim politicians know more than we do, and therefore we should obey every law that they pass. I understand you are coming from Socialist Europe, but in the USA the exact opposite philosophy is held. Nobody knows more than someone else just because they are a politician. If anything, we usually think less of our politicians than normal people. I don't buy any of that argument (again, I'm not disagreeing with the immorality of copying music necessarily--I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed).
It would seem that you see morals as a black and white thing, and hopefully you won't anymore. People violate their code of morals when they feel they are justified. I don't think that you believe vandalism is acceptable, but yet you still committed an act of vandalism simply because you wanted to "teach that guy with the BMW a lesson." Was it because you knew you wouldn't get caught, or did you feel you had a higher purpose for doing it. Either way, the politicians know "a damn-shite more than you and me," so you should obey their laws like a good little soldier and not vandalize BMW's or smoke pot (well...obviously not in Amsterdam). Suddenly, morality becomes a lot harder and pushes this argument further into the gray area if you see the point I was trying to make--not as easy as it seems on the surface.
Gwydion said:
*hugs Gwydion* Now STFU.
OSRP said:
You're right, sorry, but a few points:
1. I didn't say smoking pot or parking your car wrong is not bad, it's less bad because it doesn't really hurt anyone. There is a difference between a victimless crime and a...uh....victimfull crime (heh), but that doesn't mean they're not both bad, they're just not equally bad.
2. Yes, I was talking a bit too much in black-and-white, I do that at times to get my point across, though I believe as much in shades of gray as you do (which is why I loved Gangs of New York, btw), but allow me to say this about that;
First, I wasn't talking about politicians. Politicians don't exactly "write up the law" contrary to popular belief. A constitution was formed at some point and generally, for the people, this constitution makes sense. Amandements and additions are also usually made with the consent of the people, since it's hard not to in a democracy.
I don't believe that the law should be followed to the letter, I'll take that back (though that wasn't my intention to say in the first place). The problem is, as you said, the relativity of morale and other exceptional cases (such as laws instituted by a dictator, like Berlusconi
). I won't argue the point much further, because I think we're basically in agreement here.The point here becomes, however, up to what point is the law relative. Surely you won't argue it can be stretched far enough to excuse any theft (excepting a starving man stealing bread)? In an eutopean world, I would like to say "You may not break the law when it means hurting someone", but then I'd be breaking my own rule when I keyed that guy's car (which, btw, you may see as a general outcry on my side towards the eliterian upper-class)...
Well, we return to your point, morals are relative. This makes it a difficult matter, because everyone has their own set of morals, and that's where the law comes in handy (just like the Bible used to do), it prescribes your morals. Were I caught for keying the car (which I had no real guarantee of that I wouldn't be), I would've accepted my punishment without complaints, since it's simply what I deserve. Heh, let's just throw that case into the human need to break the rules whenever they're there
Still, that's besides the point, since the ripping of CDs is another matter. It's theft, in its normal, pure form, without any real excuses. As such, I don't think any stretching of the morals or reasonings can excuse it.
Ugh, I hope the above makes sense, since this is quite hard a point to argue, like any point about morals, which was your point anyway. Meh.
I can't afford a car. Or a motorcycle. I can either steal one or not have any at all.
WHAT DO I DO?!!?!
Music is a form of entertainment, you don't need it to survive, so how exactly is it your RIGHT to steal it?!
1. It is not your right to pirate CDs. In fact, it's a crime. The pirating of CDs is not in the decleration of human rights or in any constitution, to my knowledge, hence, IT IS NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Food is a right. Shelter is a right. Free choice is a right. CD ripping is a crime.
2. Again, you're making the distinction between actually stealing a product or ripping it. This is wrong. All pirates do this. It's simply not correct, because for the companies, it makes no real difference whether the CD is stolen or not sold. Without the sale, there is no profit.
Ripping = stealing
Their hands are tied. They can't break into people's houses and ransack them as they will...Nor does making every computer accesible to mp3-checks make any sense, for reasons mentioned before.
It's not that the strong arm of the law doesn't WANT to do anything about it. Piracy is a crime, if you're caught, you'll be damned sure you'll get arrested, but there simply is no way to catch you.
A co-worker of mine runs an online radio. In Holland, when you want to run a legal online radio you have to sign a contract giving the police the right to search your house for illegal music. For this reason, he had to buy a damned lot of CDs (which can be done cheap in our store, thank the heavens) or get thrown into jail/get a very high fine for illegal piracy.
Excuse me? As a pretty independant store with ties to a larger store (the Free Record Shop, for the duchies amongst you), I think I know pretty damned well what is hurting and not hurting the record companies.
And as I've mentioned umpteen times, the problem is NOT actual harm caused, but the fact is that companies that are on the stock market are very fragile. A soft top and they fold in on themselves as their stock holders decide to sell en masse. This hasn't happened, but the moment it happens, you can kiss the entire industry bye-bye, and with it millions upon millions of job. This is an extreme case, but it's not entirely unlikely.
Ratty, you make another huge logical error here. You seem to think crime against the Record Companies is justified because they're assholes. Why? There are lots of assholes in the world, I get at least a dozen in the store every day, but if I ever beat one up, people will name me the guilty party, and justly so.
If I don't like the way a hotel is run, I leave. I don't burn all their stuff.
Or, to make the comparison complete, say there is a restaurant (companies) with joined to it a kitchen (artists). Say I really hate the restaurant, but the food (music) is terrific. I now have a choice, either my resentment for the restaurant makes it so that I flee the scene without paying for the bill, thus hurting the kitchen as well, or I swallow my pride and pay the bill despite bad service. Pirates do the first, normal consumers do the second.
OK, stop calling me a pirate already! I don't burn CDs and sell them, I'm just a guy who occasionally downloads MP3s. All your comparisons and metaphores are lacking, to say the least. You can't compare downloading an MP3 to raping a woman, stealing a car or robbing a bank. For all these crimes you will go to jail. For downloading an MP3 you won't even get fined. As I already mentioned somewhere, even professors in my school download MP3 music. If these people, who are supposed to be our role models, who we as students are supposed look up to and respect them, don't have a problem with obtaining music through Internet, then I sure the hell won't mind violating a copyright or two. You don't seem to understand me, but I feel absolutely NO guilt, NO regret when I download music. In worst case, I'm causing some minor, negligable damage to the musicians, at best I'm giving my small contribution to the fair and just struggle against a giant called discographic industry. I refuse to be a conformist, I refuse to obey laws that protect this brutal capitalist machinery that represents a far greater threat to music than pirates. I never mentioned this but I'm a big fan of KLF. In case you haven't heard of them, KLF stands for Kopyright Liberation Front and I entirely support their goals. Their music was completely copyright-free and yet they managed to have huge success and several million sold records in only two years. I think all musicians should stand up to them, as they managed to prove three things:
1) Copyrights don't sell music - quality does.
2) Discographics industry is the greatest enemy of good music and it must be destroyed.
3) REAL musicians are motivated by music itself (l'art pour l'art) and not by financial success.
Though I don't think their vision of copyright-free music will come to life any time soon, I firmly believe that some serious changes in world of music should occur in the near future. Power of music industry should be decreased gradually over the years, music should become cheap and accessible to everyone and people should become "listeners" instead of "consumers". Furthermore, I firmly believe that one day all information should become free and concept of "intellectual property" should no longer exist. Music, movies, software, scientific ideas... They will all be treated as knowledge, and human knowledge belongs to the world! Allow me to quote Pravin Lal from "Alpha Centari" game: "Beware of the one who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Though my rantings about freeflow of knowledge and information may seem abstract and out of place when put in context with current problem of MP3 downloading, I really believe that copyrights and enforcement of intellectual property are in serious contradiction with democracy and freedom. I realize that right here, right now, it is impossible to accomplish this informational utopia, so allow me to rephrase my words and say that human knowledge belongs to the world of distant future. Hopefully, I will live to see that future.
I don't burn CDs and sell them, I'm just a guy who occasionally downloads MP3s. All your comparisons and metaphores are lacking, to say the least. You can't compare downloading an MP3 to raping a woman, stealing a car or robbing a bank. For all these crimes you will go to jail. For downloading an MP3 you won't even get fined. As I already mentioned somewhere, even professors in my school download MP3 music. If these people, who are supposed to be our role models, who we as students are supposed look up to and respect them, don't have a problem with obtaining music through Internet, then I sure the hell won't mind violating a copyright or two. You don't seem to understand me, but I feel absolutely NO guilt, NO regret when I download music. In worst case, I'm causing some minor, negligable damage to the musicians, at best I'm giving my small contribution to the fair and just struggle against a giant called discographic industry. I refuse to be a conformist, I refuse to obey laws that protect this brutal capitalist machinery that represents a far greater threat to music than pirates. I never mentioned this but I'm a big fan of KLF. In case you haven't heard of them, KLF stands for Kopyright Liberation Front and I entirely support their goals. Their music was completely copyright-free and yet they managed to have huge success and several million sold records in only two years. I think all musicians should stand up to them, as they managed to prove three things:1) Copyrights don't sell music - quality does.
2) Discographics industry is the greatest enemy of good music and it must be destroyed.
3) REAL musicians are motivated by music itself (l'art pour l'art) and not by financial success.
Though I don't think their vision of copyright-free music will come to life any time soon, I firmly believe that some serious changes in world of music should occur in the near future. Power of music industry should be decreased gradually over the years, music should become cheap and accessible to everyone and people should become "listeners" instead of "consumers". Furthermore, I firmly believe that one day all information should become free and concept of "intellectual property" should no longer exist. Music, movies, software, scientific ideas... They will all be treated as knowledge, and human knowledge belongs to the world! Allow me to quote Pravin Lal from "Alpha Centari" game: "Beware of the one who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Though my rantings about freeflow of knowledge and information may seem abstract and out of place when put in context with current problem of MP3 downloading, I really believe that copyrights and enforcement of intellectual property are in serious contradiction with democracy and freedom. I realize that right here, right now, it is impossible to accomplish this informational utopia, so allow me to rephrase my words and say that human knowledge belongs to the world of distant future. Hopefully, I will live to see that future.
Ratty said:OK, stop calling me a pirate already!
It's like you're not even listening:
1. There is no difference between piracy/downloading music and actually stealing a CD.
2. It's not punisheable because the law is unable to punish you, not because the law doesn't w3ant to.
3. Piracy IS A GODDAMNED THREAT TO THE INDUSTRY
Please scroll back up and reread some of the messages, these points were all made before.
By your logic, all REAL musicians should be starving.
Fantastic, and as I mentioned before, I firmly believe that all cross-roads should be rebuilt. And eventually, they will be rebuilt.
But this is not the goddamned future, and you're not helping it come any closer by breaking the current laws. "The industry SHOULD BE like this" is no argument to rape them like a bunch of clowns (yes, clowns are often raped).
There are other ways to make this vision come true, and according to you, it's the ineviteable future. But in the mean-time, have you seen this future come closer because of piracy? No, the industry is just shutting down tighter and tighter
You, for some unclear reason, hate the idea of conformity, yet conformity is the sole essence society is based on. Morally, legally and practically there is no real choice but the buy the gouddam (this is a fish) albums
You posted your previous message while I was writing mine, so I didn't see it. I wouldn't have made same points over again if I had known you had already replied to them.Kharn said:
I'm not in favor of radical, violent and revolutionary changes, but you are right: I do resent conformism. You must understand that I live in country where leadership is incompetent, government institutions are overstaffed, overpayed and corrupted, life standard constantly decreases, national economy is being ruined in "privatisation affairs" or simply being sold to foreigners without any public oversight or control, unemployment is sky-high, extreme-right movements are strengthening, crime, drug abuse and corruption are skyrocketing and mafia is in control of police and intelligence services. Croatia is just a prettier version of Serbia and Russia. In such a disgusting environment it is virtually impossible to be a conformist. Sometimes I wish I had power to move masses, to take young and discontented people like myself to the streets and succeed through violence where our so-called democracy has failed. Of course, most of the time I am content with waiting and hoping that mere probability of losing elections will force the incompetent hipocrites that run this country to finally make some serious changes.
Introduction of free market economy and brutal capitalism has brought Croatia no good: during the nineties most companies were bought by tycoons with political connections for only 10 or 20% of their actual value. These companies were then cleaned out, all money from them disappeared on off-shore accounts and will never be traced again. Politicians who ruled Croatia either took high percentages of the stolen money or even actively participated in purchasing and then deliberately destroying the once powerful and prominent companies. Billions and billions of dollars were stolen, and when the whole thing was discovered in 1998./1999., it was already too late. Biggest Croatian banks and companies went bankrupt and the economy was practically destroyed. Unemployment rate rose from 10% to over 30% in the matter of months. Resourcefulness of the politicians who robbed Croatia so competently was well rewarded by the people - in 2000. they lost the elections and a coalition of six parties took control. By 2003. this coalition was reduced to four parties, and by the end of their mandate in 2004. it will probably fall apart completely. Instead of dealing with the crisis, politicians of the new government were constantly fighting, bickering and struggling for more power. Our government fell twice, unemployment increased further and more companies went bankrupt. Not a single person was prosecuted for the great transitional theft in the late nineties. On the contrary, economical crime and untransparent business transactions continued. Croatian companies are this time no longer sold to Croatian tycoons, but to foreign companies and conglomerates. Now almost all of Croatian banks are owned by Italian Unicredito, all of Croatian fixed telephony is owned by Deutsche Telecomm, our biggest metallurgy was bought by Russian Mechelj. If that is capitalism, then I refuse to play along and be a conformist!
I went a little off-topic here, but this digression about the current state of my country may be vital for understanding why I am sensitive to brutality of free market economy which exploits and disregards of people worse than any totalitarian regime. I hate the trend that is taking place in our world, that powerful corporations are consuming the market and control everything, that mighty international conglomerates are more powerful than governments and courts, that individual consumer has become irrelevant pawn whose destiny is decided by multinational corporations instead by people he elected. Capitalism is becoming a twisted form of corporate totalitarism and I refuse to align myself to the merciless machinery that threatens to crush liberty and democracy in cold, calculated pursuit of profit!
Be realistic - ask for the impossible!
welsh
Junkmaster
What Croatia is going through is not that much different than many other countries, not just post-communist systems. My wife is Brazilian and she has many of the same complaints. Part of this owes to the idea of "shock therapy" that was used in Poland when it was reforming its economy, and that didn't work as well in Russia. There are also those that would say that a lot of this is typical neo-liberal reforms and the hard stage of reform. There are lots of people who might say that this is a temporary phase of restructuring, but honestly, I wouldn't make a promise that this is temporary.
But the pain that Croatia is going through does not, in of itself, excuse, intellectual property protection, although you're right. In the context I can see why capitalism and intellectual property protection merits your scorn.
A lot of this goes back to the role of the state in economic development, just as the state plays a role in determining what is legal and what is not. The state's that have long developed capital systems are not without their suffering. But the question is are these economies competetive and do they provide the quality of life that's comparative than non-market or state-controlled systems.
The brutal reality is that non-market or state-controlled systems don't. Even in those countries with rich welfare systems and significant state control there has been pruning back of the state's hand in the economy to allow economies to be more competitive.
In those systems with long established market systems, intellectual property (indeed all property protection) is a must have, for reasons listed above. Intellectual property protection enhances innovation and development by allowing the innovator the rewards of his work.
That said, what you and Croatia are going through blows. But part of this has to do more with how the state has handled transition and the influx of capital than the forces of market capitalism itself. That a strong and capable state is important for economic growth is proven by the success of the Asian "Dragons" (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore) as well as in other parts of the world. The question has more to do with the control of the state and the state's efficacy in economic reform.
There is wide spread belief that the road to happiness for most people is a democractic state with a market (capitalist) economy. There is also awareness that going from non-democratic/ non-capitalist is not easy. The problem is that most people have yet to figure out how to make it work.
But the pain that Croatia is going through does not, in of itself, excuse, intellectual property protection, although you're right. In the context I can see why capitalism and intellectual property protection merits your scorn.
A lot of this goes back to the role of the state in economic development, just as the state plays a role in determining what is legal and what is not. The state's that have long developed capital systems are not without their suffering. But the question is are these economies competetive and do they provide the quality of life that's comparative than non-market or state-controlled systems.
The brutal reality is that non-market or state-controlled systems don't. Even in those countries with rich welfare systems and significant state control there has been pruning back of the state's hand in the economy to allow economies to be more competitive.
In those systems with long established market systems, intellectual property (indeed all property protection) is a must have, for reasons listed above. Intellectual property protection enhances innovation and development by allowing the innovator the rewards of his work.
That said, what you and Croatia are going through blows. But part of this has to do more with how the state has handled transition and the influx of capital than the forces of market capitalism itself. That a strong and capable state is important for economic growth is proven by the success of the Asian "Dragons" (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore) as well as in other parts of the world. The question has more to do with the control of the state and the state's efficacy in economic reform.
There is wide spread belief that the road to happiness for most people is a democractic state with a market (capitalist) economy. There is also awareness that going from non-democratic/ non-capitalist is not easy. The problem is that most people have yet to figure out how to make it work.
I mostly agree with you on this one, Welsh. Capitalism and free market are currently the only acceptable economic system for the world. However, I resent what capitalism is becoming lately. Huge conglomerates that control everyone and everything have become stronger than the state, stronger than democracy, stronger than people, they are devouring the economy and twisting the very essence of free market. What happened to small, independent businesses? When was the last time you shopped at Ma and Pa's cornershop? Sure, why shop there, when you have the huge Wal Mart in all its glory. This kind of economy is not only inhuman and immoral, it is also unstable. If one small business goes bankrupt, nothing happens. But if a huge multinational corporation goes bankrupt, thousands of people lose their jobs and their retirement pension, and economy of entire world is jeopardized. Just look what fall of Enron did to US economy.
Of course innovators should be rewarded and credited for their discoveries. But once a new technology is discovered, a new work of art is made, a new book is written, it no longer belongs solely to the discoverer/creator. It becomes a common good, something that will improve lives of every man and woman, and thus it belongs to entire humanity. This vital principle of democracy is too often ignored and violated, and not just by copyrights and trademarks. One day I'll tell you about Nikola Tesla, a Serbian scientist who was born in Croatia and who changed the world with his discoveries of electromagentic induction, alternating current, radar technology, wireless communication and his greatest discovery - transmission of electric energy through vacuum. This technology could have changed the world and solved the energy crisis before it even began. However, US government, pressed by international energy conglomerates, withheld financing of Tesla's invention, stopped his further research and confiscated all his sketches and designs relating to energy transmission. Not content with merely shutting down Tesla's work, USA decided to get rid of Tesla altogether - he was assassinated by FBI agents in 1943.
As you can see, this revolutionary discovery that could help millions of people who have to pay for expensive power now sits forgotten and hidden away from the public somewhere in Washington. There are more examples of this manipulation with intellectual property, such as discovery of hydrogen drive, which could by now have been built into every vehicle on the planet, but powerful oil companies bought the invention and discontinued any further work on it. This is exactly why I think intellectual property shouldn't exist, because it is unfair, in contradiction with democracy and freedom of information, and it doesn't in any way guarantee that innovators will be rewarded for their brilliance, on the contrary. Would you say Tesla was well rewarded for his discovery?
Of course innovators should be rewarded and credited for their discoveries. But once a new technology is discovered, a new work of art is made, a new book is written, it no longer belongs solely to the discoverer/creator. It becomes a common good, something that will improve lives of every man and woman, and thus it belongs to entire humanity. This vital principle of democracy is too often ignored and violated, and not just by copyrights and trademarks. One day I'll tell you about Nikola Tesla, a Serbian scientist who was born in Croatia and who changed the world with his discoveries of electromagentic induction, alternating current, radar technology, wireless communication and his greatest discovery - transmission of electric energy through vacuum. This technology could have changed the world and solved the energy crisis before it even began. However, US government, pressed by international energy conglomerates, withheld financing of Tesla's invention, stopped his further research and confiscated all his sketches and designs relating to energy transmission. Not content with merely shutting down Tesla's work, USA decided to get rid of Tesla altogether - he was assassinated by FBI agents in 1943.
As you can see, this revolutionary discovery that could help millions of people who have to pay for expensive power now sits forgotten and hidden away from the public somewhere in Washington. There are more examples of this manipulation with intellectual property, such as discovery of hydrogen drive, which could by now have been built into every vehicle on the planet, but powerful oil companies bought the invention and discontinued any further work on it. This is exactly why I think intellectual property shouldn't exist, because it is unfair, in contradiction with democracy and freedom of information, and it doesn't in any way guarantee that innovators will be rewarded for their brilliance, on the contrary. Would you say Tesla was well rewarded for his discovery?
welsh
Junkmaster
Dear Ratty-
Well here is something from the Web on Tesla-
Tesla allowed himself only a few close friends. Among them were the writers Robert Underwood Johnson, Mark Twain, and Francis Marion Crawford. He was quite impractical in financial matters and an eccentric, driven by compulsions and a progressive germ phobia. But he had a way of intuitively sensing hidden scientific secrets and employing his inventive talent to prove his hypotheses. Tesla was a godsend to reporters who sought sensational copy but a problem to editors who were uncertain how seriously his futuristic prophecies should be regarded. Caustic criticism greeted his speculations concerning communication with other planets, his assertions that he could split the Earth like an apple, and his claim of having invented a death ray capable of destroying 10,000 airplanes at a distance of 250 miles (400 kilometres).
After Tesla's death the custodian of alien property impounded his trunks, which held his papers, his diplomas and other honours, his letters, and his laboratory notes. These were eventually inherited by Tesla's nephew, Sava Kosanovich, and later housed in the Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade.
Ok-
While it is possible that he was whacked by the FBI, it seems the cause of death was coronary thrombosis, which considering his advanced age and probable diet was no great surprise. I mean the guy lived about 87 years! On the other hand, I recall that the inventor of a super cannon was killed shortly before the first Iraq war because he was selling his technology to the Iraqi's. In Tesla's case it seemed that he had family related to the Soviets and that he had been funded by a Soviet arms front. So assassination is possible, altough I think a better explanation could be found in death by natural causes.
Not sure about all this "energy conglomorates working with the US against him" stuff. His notes were confiscated after death but then this was a fellow who was speculating about a "death beam" that could destroy thousands of airplanes so it would make sense considering national security. However, it does seem that most of his records were released and were looked at by engineers. It is interesting that some of this records disappeared, although both the Soviets and the US did make claims for partical beam weapons. It also seems Tesla's notes on a beam weapon were researched by the US military after the war.
Interestingly, Tesla's inventions gave birth to many patents, even if he died poor and that he did a lot of work with Westinghouse and Edison. The importance on patents would seem to support the argument on the right of intellectual property. After all, he did win a big patent suit at the US Supreme Court on the invention of radio.
As regards to capitalism.
Capitalism in principle is a theory that says that social welfare can be obtained by reaping the benefits of the greed of individuals. That individuals have the right to profit of their labor can be found in such people as the makers of Apple Computer or even the Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. Here you had people with inventions that really took off and became big successes.
Frankly, the development of large conglomerates worries me as does a trend that indicates that society is moving so that the rich are richer, the poor are poorer and the middle class is declining. Economies of scale and market strength allow Walmarts (certainly a creature of dark forces) to prosper. I am also familiar with the automobile industry buying up inventions for more fuel efficient cars so that they could limit competition. The relationship between the state and business is close because usually it has to be. The success of the state depends on its economic strength, which means the strength of business. But I also think that the failure to support the middle class (small and medium businesses) is the root to even greater inequalities in our society. In the US, about 100 years ago, you had a state that was very supportive of big business to the detriment of society. Although some development was made (such as antitrust law) for the most part this trend didn't end until the 1930s and the Great Depression. So a lot of the problem here is, I think, two fold. One is the reliance of different economic theories that support different class interests. The second is the greed of those powerful enough to manipulate the system to their advantage. It happens in Croatia, but also in the US.
That pisses me off. I find it tragic that in this country more African-Americans are sent to the death penalty than whites because they are too poor to afford a lawyer while business execs get away with a slap on the wrist. If you support the death penalty, and that's a seperate question, I would say anyone who robs more than $5 million needs to get whacked, especially if they flee the country. To me, if you accept that a death penalty is not cruel and unusual, then its not cruel and unusual to inflict that punishment on exec.
Well here is something from the Web on Tesla-
Tesla allowed himself only a few close friends. Among them were the writers Robert Underwood Johnson, Mark Twain, and Francis Marion Crawford. He was quite impractical in financial matters and an eccentric, driven by compulsions and a progressive germ phobia. But he had a way of intuitively sensing hidden scientific secrets and employing his inventive talent to prove his hypotheses. Tesla was a godsend to reporters who sought sensational copy but a problem to editors who were uncertain how seriously his futuristic prophecies should be regarded. Caustic criticism greeted his speculations concerning communication with other planets, his assertions that he could split the Earth like an apple, and his claim of having invented a death ray capable of destroying 10,000 airplanes at a distance of 250 miles (400 kilometres).
After Tesla's death the custodian of alien property impounded his trunks, which held his papers, his diplomas and other honours, his letters, and his laboratory notes. These were eventually inherited by Tesla's nephew, Sava Kosanovich, and later housed in the Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade.
Ok-
While it is possible that he was whacked by the FBI, it seems the cause of death was coronary thrombosis, which considering his advanced age and probable diet was no great surprise. I mean the guy lived about 87 years! On the other hand, I recall that the inventor of a super cannon was killed shortly before the first Iraq war because he was selling his technology to the Iraqi's. In Tesla's case it seemed that he had family related to the Soviets and that he had been funded by a Soviet arms front. So assassination is possible, altough I think a better explanation could be found in death by natural causes.
Not sure about all this "energy conglomorates working with the US against him" stuff. His notes were confiscated after death but then this was a fellow who was speculating about a "death beam" that could destroy thousands of airplanes so it would make sense considering national security. However, it does seem that most of his records were released and were looked at by engineers. It is interesting that some of this records disappeared, although both the Soviets and the US did make claims for partical beam weapons. It also seems Tesla's notes on a beam weapon were researched by the US military after the war.
Interestingly, Tesla's inventions gave birth to many patents, even if he died poor and that he did a lot of work with Westinghouse and Edison. The importance on patents would seem to support the argument on the right of intellectual property. After all, he did win a big patent suit at the US Supreme Court on the invention of radio.
As regards to capitalism.
Capitalism in principle is a theory that says that social welfare can be obtained by reaping the benefits of the greed of individuals. That individuals have the right to profit of their labor can be found in such people as the makers of Apple Computer or even the Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. Here you had people with inventions that really took off and became big successes.
Frankly, the development of large conglomerates worries me as does a trend that indicates that society is moving so that the rich are richer, the poor are poorer and the middle class is declining. Economies of scale and market strength allow Walmarts (certainly a creature of dark forces) to prosper. I am also familiar with the automobile industry buying up inventions for more fuel efficient cars so that they could limit competition. The relationship between the state and business is close because usually it has to be. The success of the state depends on its economic strength, which means the strength of business. But I also think that the failure to support the middle class (small and medium businesses) is the root to even greater inequalities in our society. In the US, about 100 years ago, you had a state that was very supportive of big business to the detriment of society. Although some development was made (such as antitrust law) for the most part this trend didn't end until the 1930s and the Great Depression. So a lot of the problem here is, I think, two fold. One is the reliance of different economic theories that support different class interests. The second is the greed of those powerful enough to manipulate the system to their advantage. It happens in Croatia, but also in the US.
That pisses me off. I find it tragic that in this country more African-Americans are sent to the death penalty than whites because they are too poor to afford a lawyer while business execs get away with a slap on the wrist. If you support the death penalty, and that's a seperate question, I would say anyone who robs more than $5 million needs to get whacked, especially if they flee the country. To me, if you accept that a death penalty is not cruel and unusual, then its not cruel and unusual to inflict that punishment on exec.
Well, you said it all. I have nothing to add except that I don't support death penalty, but I am entirely in favor of equalty before the law. Even in most democratic countries justice system suffers "O.J. Simpson syndrome". Other words, justice system works fine for middle class (which is, as you said, in decline), but it always tends to show leniancy towards rich and influential people who break the law and is exceptionally harsh on lower classes who can't afford private lawyers. Though when I compare U.S. justice system to the corrupted disorganized mess we have here in Croatia, I can't help but feel a little envious, but even in most developed countries actual law practice is far from what is shown in TV series like "The Practice" (hmmm, now don't get me wrong, I love watching "The Practice"...).
Uh, this discussion WAS about piracy, ehehehe.
Xexexexe.
Welsh, "capital punishment". Yip. I've never been too fond of the American legal system anyway. What the hell is that jury doing there? Why are a bunch of ordinary men with no knowledge of the law or human psyche allowed to judge life or death over others?
On one hand, they have as much right as anyone, but on the other, their non-specalisation makes it dangerous, and they might be idiots.
Also, it takes in another great psychological effect. The reason more black people are executed than whites is not only a matter of money, it's also a matter of sub-concious. "He is black, it is more likely for him to commit a crime" is a very common sub-concious thought, not only amongst white people, but also amongst the black, and of course "If man defines situations as real they are real in their consequences", you get the idea.
Capitalism. Well, it sucks, but so does democracy. In both cases, we have little better at the moment.
Anyway, things roll over naturally, it'll all change in due time. In the mean-time, piracy is still wrong.
Xexexexe.
Xexexexe.
Welsh, "capital punishment". Yip. I've never been too fond of the American legal system anyway. What the hell is that jury doing there? Why are a bunch of ordinary men with no knowledge of the law or human psyche allowed to judge life or death over others?
On one hand, they have as much right as anyone, but on the other, their non-specalisation makes it dangerous, and they might be idiots.
Also, it takes in another great psychological effect. The reason more black people are executed than whites is not only a matter of money, it's also a matter of sub-concious. "He is black, it is more likely for him to commit a crime" is a very common sub-concious thought, not only amongst white people, but also amongst the black, and of course "If man defines situations as real they are real in their consequences", you get the idea.
Capitalism. Well, it sucks, but so does democracy. In both cases, we have little better at the moment.
Anyway, things roll over naturally, it'll all change in due time. In the mean-time, piracy is still wrong.
Xexexexe.
Phew, I hope this discussion is now closed. My fingers hurt from all the typing, spacebar on my keyboard is becoming weak and thinking of new arguments to support my views is giving me a headache. No, sorry, alcohol is responsible for the headache. Damn those bottles that look smaller than they really are. 
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
I'd have to say that an FBI assassination of Tesla would be highly unlikely, as the CIA is the organization responsible for assassinations.
Wow, this is what frightens me, Kharn. First of all, the jury trial is one of the *cornerstones* of American government. God, I shudder to think that our lives would be determined by professional jurors or judges with God complexes. Yikes! To be judged by a jury of one's peers ensures that people who know and can understand the circumstances of the person brought up on trial can judge that individual fairly. The idea of law in America was *never* designed to punish the guilty. It is--and always has been--designed to protect the innocent.
Just like your comments about Capitalism and Democracy. I find your views typical of Europeans, and that is one of the most frightening things I can imagine. Europe is simply a socialist police state in which most of the population is brainwashed or forced to believe a certain philosophy which adheres to the policies of the state, and not the individual. I remember having a discussion with one of my former German coworkers about the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the puzzled looks on his face. Despite claiming that Germans have a fierce devotion to privacy rights, his rebuttal to my agreement with the 4th Amendment was, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about."
I guess what I'm saying is that the system of the United State Government--however flawed and off the track of it's original intentions--was placed because of liberties which were denied our ancestors by an oppressive government in Europe. It seems that little has changed--and I for one know that I could not live in Europe for one year without landing in prison. I find it disgraceful and appalling the conditions in which Europeans so readily accept.
BTW, I mean nothing to you or your beliefs, Kharn. This is simply my own rant about the government in which you live with.
Kharn said:
Wow, this is what frightens me, Kharn. First of all, the jury trial is one of the *cornerstones* of American government. God, I shudder to think that our lives would be determined by professional jurors or judges with God complexes. Yikes! To be judged by a jury of one's peers ensures that people who know and can understand the circumstances of the person brought up on trial can judge that individual fairly. The idea of law in America was *never* designed to punish the guilty. It is--and always has been--designed to protect the innocent.
Just like your comments about Capitalism and Democracy. I find your views typical of Europeans, and that is one of the most frightening things I can imagine. Europe is simply a socialist police state in which most of the population is brainwashed or forced to believe a certain philosophy which adheres to the policies of the state, and not the individual. I remember having a discussion with one of my former German coworkers about the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the puzzled looks on his face. Despite claiming that Germans have a fierce devotion to privacy rights, his rebuttal to my agreement with the 4th Amendment was, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about."
I guess what I'm saying is that the system of the United State Government--however flawed and off the track of it's original intentions--was placed because of liberties which were denied our ancestors by an oppressive government in Europe. It seems that little has changed--and I for one know that I could not live in Europe for one year without landing in prison. I find it disgraceful and appalling the conditions in which Europeans so readily accept.
BTW, I mean nothing to you or your beliefs, Kharn. This is simply my own rant about the government in which you live with.