| Author |
Thread |
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
 Posted - 2010/09/09 : 00:27:12
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
Just as you source Wiki, I use *******freak.
errr, what?
as for wiki, how much do you know about their quality control protocols? I know of lecturers who have sourced content direct from wikipedia. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.
quote:
And I slipped my tongue (or fingers?) about owning the copyright. Possession is the word I should have used to word it better
possession works just fine. But you still have to take something to possess it.
If you want educated arguments, I aint the one to bring 'em :P
I meant more than the standard name calling arguments.
If you really insist on pushing the wikipedia point, this is from my computers dictionary
piracy
the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
a similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking : air piracy.
the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work : software piracy.
theft
the action or crime of stealing : he was convicted of theft | the latest theft happened at a garage.
and who would know? they say the same thing...
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator 
|
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 02:22:19
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
Time to go n00b hunting...
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
say you go to your local public library and read a complete book, and then return home very happy for all the information you gained, and you didn't spend absolutely any money
Does that make you a criminal becuase you didn't buy the book?
No, because the local/state/federal council/government has already payed for the copyright of having it publicly available.
as Wilky said above, in order anything to be on internet someone must have bought it at least one time (same as the library did), and then uploaded it, so the copyright of that original copy has been paid.
quote:
quote:
I do believe artists of all kinds must be paid and rewarded for they work, but I also believe that all knowledge and cultural information (music included) should be available to anyone and everywhere in the world.
Yeh sure, for the right price. Nothing's free in this world mate. That's the issue with socialists, they just don't get that.
you mean socialist like half way comunist? if so please don't call that to me ever again, its offensive ;)
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
agreed
piracy is to steal or rip something and then sell it, most of the times at a lower price
say someone photocopy a book or burn some dvd movies and then
sell the copies in the streets.. THAT is piracy, because you are earning money without paying to the copyrigth owners.
nup, you're wrong. From wikipedia: Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.. Nothing about selling in there, champ.
Im pretty right on this one,
heres one of the definitions you posted:
"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work"
the definition I posted is clearly included in this statement,
but I give you that "selling" is not the definite characteristic of piracy.
quote:
quote:
artists think that if file sharing was completely vanished from the world their sales would increase like crazy, but I don't think that would be the case, best case scenario they would sale the same, and would have less fans...
imo
Well luckily for everyone else, we are not goverened by your opinion, because once again you're wrong. I can only assume that you are about 16 or so, and don't know what a cd or tape or vinyl is. Believe it or not, people back then also enjoyed listening to music, and were willing to pay for it as well. And given that, one could easily argue they were more appreciative of music than you are because they could put their money where their mouth was.
actually, none of us is correct on this one,
I stated an hypothetical situation (filesharing being vanished from the world), so there is no way of proving what would really happen in such event.
and you can't prove your point based in past events.
quote:
I love a solid bit of educated argument mate, bring it.
...I meant more than the standard name calling arguments.
Time to go n00b hunting...
...
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 08:31:30
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
as Wilky said above, in order anything to be on internet someone must have bought it at least one time (same as the library did), and then uploaded it, so the copyright of that original copy has been paid.
yes, the original one the library has, not your one. So, no, it hasn't been paid.
quote:
you mean socialist like half way comunist? if so please don't call that to me ever again, its offensive ;)
why? There's nothing wrong with either socialism or communism. That you think there is just shows that you probably don't know what either really are. I'm not trying to get a rise out of you here, just stating it as it sounds. I'm a blunt person by nature.
quote:
quote:
nup, you're wrong. From wikipedia: Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.. Nothing about selling in there, champ.
Im pretty right on this one,
heres one of the definitions you posted:
"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work"
the definition I posted is clearly included in this statement,
but I give you that "selling" is not the definite characteristic of piracy.
If I said the holocaust was when the nazi's tried to wipe out x milliion jews and frenchies, I would be wrong because it wasn't. Same applies here.
However running with your changed definition of piracy and you are back to... you guessed it, illegal filesharing. So which one will it be?
quote:
quote:
Well luckily for everyone else, we are not goverened by your opinion, because once again you're wrong. I can only assume that you are about 16 or so, and don't know what a cd or tape or vinyl is. Believe it or not, people back then also enjoyed listening to music, and were willing to pay for it as well. And given that, one could easily argue they were more appreciative of music than you are because they could put their money where their mouth was.
actually, none of us is correct on this one,
I stated an hypothetical situation (filesharing being vanished from the world), so there is no way of proving what would really happen in such event.
and you can't prove your point based in past events.
again, you are still wrong (with both your points), one of us is correct and it is me. Standard hypothetical events are quite easy to model and hence deduce. It's done frequently in both science and economics. This method is the backbone of calculus and how we know through natural selection that people evolved from combinations of amino acids. They start with trends towards the hypothetical and then extend them to the boundary condition. In this situation, past events form a trend-line for model of the hypothetical situation, so they can be used to determine the hypothetical outcome.
Arguing that someone can not use past events to prove a solution is like saying that in order to measure the weight of an object or measure the stress in a beam we would have to discover and prove gravity all over again, every single time that we form a hypothesis. It's pure crap your talking champ.
quote:
I love a solid bit of educated argument mate, bring it.
...I meant more than the standard name calling arguments.
Time to go n00b hunting...
Compared to "You're wrong because you're gay" or "If you think that you must have your head up your ass" or "I'm right because my dad is better than your dad." or "BECAUSE IT'S MEPHADRONE!!!"
Ie. unfounded accusations that have no basis whatsoever as opposed to logical reasoning. get my drift?
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
Edited by - Lilley on 2010/09/09 08:33:16 |
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 13:28:30
You're handling this surprisingly immaturely, lilley.
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 13:34:39
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
actually, none of us is correct on this one,
I stated an hypothetical situation (filesharing being vanished from the world), so there is no way of proving what would really happen in such event.
and you can't prove your point based in past events.
again, you are still wrong (with both your points), one of us is correct and it is me. Standard hypothetical events are quite easy to model and hence deduce. It's done frequently in both science and economics. This method is the backbone of calculus and how we know through natural selection that people evolved from combinations of amino acids. They start with trends towards the hypothetical and then extend them to the boundary condition. In this situation, past events form a trend-line for model of the hypothetical situation, so they can be used to determine the hypothetical outcome.
tl;dr, but Science is everchanging. Most rules applied are based on the knowledge of the present. And we all know knowledge is a never ending stream of new data.
Back to the Wiki thing (I'm gonna nag you about it to infinity  ). Even if Wikipedia's might have good moderators, since it's open-editing (allowing everyone to edit the text), everyone could change it. I wont deny that most stuff added are correct, but we all know that some stuff are edited for propaganda.
Also, just because something is copyrighted, it does not mean that it needs to be paid to be used/acquired. I'm pretty sure copyright only regulates how you, as an consumer, may use the right of the copy, not how you acquire it. But that's, of course, is up to the copyright owner. If the owner wants to give the copy out for free, its the owners choice.
I wish artists would approve that their older stuff get used as "abandonware", as long as it's for private use :P
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2010/09/09 13:40:16 |
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 13:50:30
no idea how wiki came into it, cant be arsed to read the last few pages as im sure its all just crap thats been said before
but i just wanted to say that wiki is fine for info - you have to cite where the information comes from and they do a fairly good job "moderating" it. whenever something makes a claim check that at the end of that claim that it has a cite-number, then check the citations at the bottom as to where the originating info came from. just like any website.
except with wiki because you have so many people researching and editing it, eventually it comes to a solid conclusion with very very very good cite notes.
unlike with a normal website where the webmaster makes a comment and doesnt even have to provide a citation.
people love to hate on it, but really if you don't know how to use the citeations then truely you must be a person who just browses the internet believing anything you read. I mean propaganda compared to what?..what are you comparing it to? the dictionary?
is why i always find the "oh wow you can't trust wiki, people can edit it" a retarded argument - you'll get more truth out of an article that has citations and quotations than you will a website that is wholely biased to one particular subject - which is worse, a website where two different opinions are forced to cite where they got their info from..or just one website which is written by a onesided-non-cited non-editable website.
</wikirant>
on another note - we all pay for librarys through taxes here in england. so we are constantly paying for them - same with muesums.
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
Edited by - Triquatra on 2010/09/09 13:53:09 |
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:09:52
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
on another note - we all pay for librarys through taxes here in england. so we are constantly paying for them - same with muesums.
now thats a solid argument I reckon
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:21:04
i agree with samination - they should free up the older stuff if they arent going to make any cash from it - rather than waiting the 50 years after its copywrite expiration it will take for it to become public domain (might be 70 in the usa?)
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
|
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:21:20
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
again, you are still wrong (with both your points), one of us is correct and it is me. Standard hypothetical events are quite easy to model and hence deduce. It's done frequently in both science and economics. This method is the backbone of calculus and how we know through natural selection that people evolved from combinations of amino acids. They start with trends towards the hypothetical and then extend them to the boundary condition. In this situation, past events form a trend-line for model of the hypothetical situation, so they can be used to determine the hypothetical outcome.
Arguing that someone can not use past events to prove a solution is like saying that in order to measure the weight of an object or measure the stress in a beam we would have to discover and prove gravity all over again, every single time that we form a hypothesis. It's pure crap your talking champ.
ever heard of statistical anomaly?
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:25:05
I made a questionnaire, if anyone wants to answer it :P
http://www.happyhardcore.com/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=51285
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:31:11
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i agree with samination - they should free up the older stuff if they arent going to make any cash from it - rather than waiting the 50 years after its copywrite expiration it will take for it to become public domain (might be 70 in the usa?)
Well. Best in my opinion is that they try to sell their old songs on websites like 24/7. They might not get a big buck, but at least people can pay to own a legal copy of the song and the creators might get some more money out of something old
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:42:53
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
You're handling this surprisingly immaturely, lilley.
I'm playing. ;) let me be.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:52:39
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
tl;dr, but Science is everchanging. Most rules applied are based on the knowledge of the present. And we all know knowledge is a never ending stream of new data.
yes, but what's you point? Science can only get more accurate. People's misunderstanding of scientific process can get quite frustrating at times.
quote:
Back to the Wiki thing (I'm gonna nag you about it to infinity ).
I did include some dictionary def's there. It's up above somewhere.
quote:
Also, just because something is copyrighted, it does not mean that it needs to be paid to be used/acquired. I'm pretty sure copyright only regulates how you, as an consumer, may use the right of the copy, not how you acquire it. But that's, of course, is up to the copyright owner. If the owner wants to give the copy out for free, its the owners choice.
But surely if you did not acquire the right to the copy, you have no right to use it?
quote:
I wish artists would approve that their older stuff get used as "abandonware", as long as it's for private use :P
There is something very similar, it is when items get released to the "public domain". "Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired,[1] and/or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited." however it can take quite a while for stuff to get released (100+ years a while).
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
Edited by - Lilley on 2010/09/09 15:03:56 |
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:55:24
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
again, you are still wrong (with both your points), one of us is correct and it is me. Standard hypothetical events are quite easy to model and hence deduce. It's done frequently in both science and economics. This method is the backbone of calculus and how we know through natural selection that people evolved from combinations of amino acids. They start with trends towards the hypothetical and then extend them to the boundary condition. In this situation, past events form a trend-line for model of the hypothetical situation, so they can be used to determine the hypothetical outcome.
Arguing that someone can not use past events to prove a solution is like saying that in order to measure the weight of an object or measure the stress in a beam we would have to discover and prove gravity all over again, every single time that we form a hypothesis. It's pure crap your talking champ.
ever heard of statistical anomaly?
did you just try and classify all past research and evidence as statistical anomaly? seriously dude, please have some idea of what you are talking about.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/09 : 14:58:25
quote:
Originally posted by choonland:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
on another note - we all pay for librarys through taxes here in england. so we are constantly paying for them - same with muesums.
now thats a solid argument I reckon
yes, he does have a point, and that is why you get to use them. What it does not make allowance for, is someone stealing from them.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
