Who here acctually buys movies, music tv shows, e.t.c.
closed account (G30oGNh0)
About the pirating...
I read somewhere on the internet ( Yes I know, not very reliable ) that when you buy something like hardware such as an xbox or a playstation 4 or digital media such as films, games, software etc etc, you don't actually buy the product, the product is in no way in your ownership, it still belongs to the company, you've just paid for the right to use it?
This is why it is against the law to reverse engineer software and hardware, because it isn't yours?
I could be wrong, I'm only 20, I have no idea how the world works ( In most cases no one does ).
I have pirated a lot, I mean a lot...especially software/books which I need.
Me and my family haven't really had much money to pay for such things, if I could pirate food, I probably would.
I read somewhere on the internet ( Yes I know, not very reliable ) that when you buy something like hardware such as an xbox or a playstation 4 or digital media such as films, games, software etc etc, you don't actually buy the product, the product is in no way in your ownership, it still belongs to the company, you've just paid for the right to use it?
This is why it is against the law to reverse engineer software and hardware, because it isn't yours?
I could be wrong, I'm only 20, I have no idea how the world works ( In most cases no one does ).
I have pirated a lot, I mean a lot...especially software/books which I need.
Me and my family haven't really had much money to pay for such things, if I could pirate food, I probably would.
| if I could pirate food, I probably would. |
Wait like 20 years, I bet we'll have organic 3D printers capable of just that by then.
Also I can't find the article, but I read a study that showed that pirating hurts big production companies of movies and music at a miniscule level and actually helps indie producers. Take that with a grain of salt, though.
closed account (G30oGNh0)
Ha! I probably wouldn't eat it :)
I remember as a kid watching spy kids, when they put the block of chocolate in the microwave and it comes out as McDonald's, surely that can't be real food.
Back on topic:
You are right, the profits affected by pirating are negligible. My estimated statistic is 1 in every 100 pirate software, and that's generous. Either way, as long as that corporation has got a few mill in the bank, they're getting free money every month anyway, which only keeps growing.
I remember as a kid watching spy kids, when they put the block of chocolate in the microwave and it comes out as McDonald's, surely that can't be real food.
Back on topic:
You are right, the profits affected by pirating are negligible. My estimated statistic is 1 in every 100 pirate software, and that's generous. Either way, as long as that corporation has got a few mill in the bank, they're getting free money every month anyway, which only keeps growing.
@giblit: it doesn't insult me, it insults the country - it's like you're treating them like some poor beggar and are too lazy to teach them how to catch a fish so instead you just give them the fish you caught.
Last edited on
| L B wrote: |
|---|
| it doesn't insult me, it insults the country - it's like you're treating them like some poor beggar and are too lazy to teach them how to catch a fish so instead you just give them the fish you caught. |
Unfortunately, it's never that simple.
| but I read a study that showed that pirating hurts big production companies of movies and music at a miniscule level and actually helps indie producers. Take that with a grain of salt, though. |
I'd say this is almost completely the opposite of reality. It hurts big production companies and makes things much harder for smaller ones/individuals.
| Cheraphy wrote: |
|---|
| Unfortunately, it's never that simple. |
As for pirating, I think I will finally add to the conversation my opinion: I think companies have not yet begun to understand or comprehend the digital era as it pertains to their business model. Old business models are being used that don't even take into consideration the fact that digital data is so easily copied, and that virtual machines with a fixed time and date and save states are so easy to obtain.
We are only at the very beginning of the transition from pre-digital to post-digital. Currently the only digital crime that seems to be well-defined and successfully punishable is plagiarism.
I have more to say but nobody will read such a long post.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| it doesn't insult me, it insults the country - it's like you're treating them like some poor beggar and are too lazy to teach them how to catch a fish so instead you just give them the fish you caught. |
@LB
It is normally the country requesting the aid from other countries. Also, most of the countries have dirty water supplies to where the fish out of it would be unhealthy to eat. As for teachers, there are organizations and missionaries that go to the countries to educate and teach skills to, but fishing is only handy if you can eat the fish and in most cases the water is so dirty that the fish's meat is unhealthy to eat because it is saturated in the filth.
It is just your perception that it is insulting to the country, but I've had to rely on peoples donations of food and clothes as a kid after my father was murdered. He was the one that worked, so after his death my mom didn't work and it was hard and if it hadn't been for those kind of organizations and family helping with bills we would have been on the streets ourselves. Those with too much pride find it insulting and refuse help by calling it charity or pity. Those who realize they will die without help appreciate the help in the end.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| it doesn't insult me, it insults the country |
I'm sure that all the peoples that have received aid after a natural disaster have felt very insulted by it, we should stop giving them aid and let them die with dignity.
_______________________________________
This message was bought to you with the aid of sarcasm and a healthy dose of WTF.
There's popular ideology in the US media where helping people is considered counter-productive or insulting. Personally I think that's a little crazy. I think it comes from "living in a bubble" so to speak... where you have been wrapped up in your own world for so long (possibly your entire life), that you simply fail to grasp how difficult life is for people outside of your world.
Not to turn this into a political debate, but I think this is the predominate problem with the Republican party in the US. They're all rich white men who don't know what it's like to not be rich or white. It's like they have no concept of what reality is like for most of the country. (Not to say the Democrats don't have lots of problems of their own)
But I disgress. My point is.... if people really are insulted by the help, they won't accept it.
On the other hand, I think we should focus more on helping people in our own country before we do world-wide outreach.
Not to turn this into a political debate, but I think this is the predominate problem with the Republican party in the US. They're all rich white men who don't know what it's like to not be rich or white. It's like they have no concept of what reality is like for most of the country. (Not to say the Democrats don't have lots of problems of their own)
But I disgress. My point is.... if people really are insulted by the help, they won't accept it.
On the other hand, I think we should focus more on helping people in our own country before we do world-wide outreach.
Last edited on
| I don't see you sending money and supplies to businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't survive on their own. |
I thought we were talking about people, not businesses.
| I thought we were talking about people, not businesses. |
This.
Business are not people. No matter what Mitt Romney says.
| Cheraphy wrote: |
|---|
| I thought we were talking about people, not businesses. |
| L B wrote: |
|---|
| [quote=Cheraphy]The only complex thing going on here is letting empathy blind logic when it is people starving instead of businesses starving. |
Go down the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
Tell me any one you think does not apply to a business.
EDIT: @Disch I didn't see your post. I don't pay attention to politics any more after taking Government and Economics so I don't know what Mitt Romney says.
Last edited on
That's a very touchy subject. Personally I can't even believe that unemployment benefits exist. There's a difference between providing the minimum to become employed, and providing enough to buy luxury shoes and milk the system.
People should be discouraged to get employed - not encouraged to stay unemployed because they can live a decent life without working.
I don't know what political group I fall into. Every test I take has bad questions and I end up in a different place on the chart each time. I only know that I don't like the stupid two-party system we have because of FPTP - I can't even tell the difference between R and D.
In other words, I hate politics :p
People should be discouraged to get employed - not encouraged to stay unemployed because they can live a decent life without working.
I don't know what political group I fall into. Every test I take has bad questions and I end up in a different place on the chart each time. I only know that I don't like the stupid two-party system we have because of FPTP - I can't even tell the difference between R and D.
In other words, I hate politics :p
Last edited on
| L B wrote: |
|---|
| I see businesses as living entities, seeing as they fit most if not all the requirements of life, just as many scientists consider cities to be alive. |
I always thought the definition of "life" was rather arbitrary. If you want to stretch the definition to include things like businesses and cities (which are clearly artificial) then that kind of defeats the entire point of distinguishing life from non-life, IMO.
| Go down the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology Tell me any one you think does not apply to a business. |
#3 - Metabolism certainly does not apply to businesses. The only organic components in businesses are its workers. And businesses do not create workers internally through metabolism. The workers aren't even strictly part of the business (ie: people are only there for a few hours before they go home and do other things)
Some others are questionable, but I suppose if you count the people working in the business as part of the business itself, they could qualify.
| Personally I can't even believe that unemployment benefits exist. There's a difference between providing the minimum to become employed, and providing enough to buy luxury shoes and milk the system. |
I think we've reached a point in society (and have actually been here for several years) where there's more people living than work that needs to be done. Its at that point where the flaws in Capitalism become exaggerated.
Most people aren't unemployed because they're lazy. They're unemployed because there simply isn't work.
And a lot of people who are employed simply don't make enough money.
A lot of people say minimum wage shouldn't be increased because minimum wage jobs are not intended to pay a livable wage... that you're supposed you work your way up and out of them. But that implies that there are enough higher-level jobs to go around for everyone in the country... which there clearly isn't.
The only solution I see to this problem is to do a better job of socializing income -- though government sponsored programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, supplementary income for people whose job does not pay well enough, etc.
Of course... if anyone even mentions the 's' word they're berated in the media for being un-American. The general attitude of the country is to just say "screw it" and leave people who were born into shitty circumstances to twist in the wind. This leads to tremendous income gaps (which this country has), high crime (which this country has), and high incarceration rates (which this country has in spades).
EDIT:
And yes... there are always people who are going to abuse the system. Though I find it comically tragic that people are more concerned about the poor abusing the system for a few grand just so they can survive than they are for the 1% abusing the system for billions purely out of greed.
| In other words, I hate politics :p |
Ditto.
Last edited on
So I take it you don't vote? That would be odd to me, to say you hate politics and vote because you have to stay up with politics in order to know who to vote for. Wouldn't want to vote for someone that may be fighting to ban violent video games or pull actions movies due to fight scenes or ban all guns except law enforcement and military.
@BHX Specter: eat your vegetables.
> you don't actually buy the product, the product is in no way in your ownership,
> it still belongs to the company, you've just paid for the right to use it?
seems so. And that `use' may have restrictions too.
>> if I could pirate food, I probably would
> Wait like 20 years, I bet we'll have organic 3D printers capable of just that by then.
maybe you could simply take the seeds and replant them...
¡já, you can't!
> you don't actually buy the product, the product is in no way in your ownership,
> it still belongs to the company, you've just paid for the right to use it?
seems so. And that `use' may have restrictions too.
>> if I could pirate food, I probably would
> Wait like 20 years, I bet we'll have organic 3D printers capable of just that by then.
maybe you could simply take the seeds and replant them...
¡já, you can't!
I vote specifically to retain the lesser of evils. If we had a rolling ballet, things would be better. IMO.
| Cheraphy wrote: |
|---|
| If we had a rolling ballet... |
Sounds dangerous :O Might make the phrase Break a leg more literal...