PDA

View Full Version : A18



FuckConformity
08-09-2004, 10:00 AM
Hey, has anyone got a link to A18 lyrics from the new album - Dear Furious? If it has been posted earlier, please give me a link to that thread, I'm new on this forum, so I didn't really feel like looking through everything.

If it is difficult, I will be a wee bit more precise. I'm mainly interested in the lyrics of Stab You Through The Everything. Perhaps those of you who are brought in english-speaking homes will find it slightly easier to write down the lyrics by listening, if you will do me that favour.

Looking forward to your answers, thanks in advance.

xsecx
08-30-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Hey, has anyone got a link to A18 lyrics from the new album - Dear Furious? If it has been posted earlier, please give me a link to that thread, I'm new on this forum, so I didn't really feel like looking through everything.

If it is difficult, I will be a wee bit more precise. I'm mainly interested in the lyrics of Stab You Through The Everything. Perhaps those of you who are brought in english-speaking homes will find it slightly easier to write down the lyrics by listening, if you will do me that favour.

Looking forward to your answers, thanks in advance.

if you buy the record it has the lyrics with it.

flame_still_burns
08-31-2004, 03:32 PM
i fucking hate you. the old fashioned way and i want you dead, your family dead, your co-workers erased...

wait that's not posi-core!

did you look on www.hardcorelyrics.com ?

xdaddydaycorex
09-01-2004, 07:16 PM
Holy f*ck !!! will someone give me a mop cuz i just finished listening to Dear Furious for the first time and ....i need to clean my face off the f*cking floor!!!!
My God!!!! it shreads the meat off your bones!!! The flatline sound at the end of Heartbreak Affiliated (track 12) nearly sent me to the ER for fear that it was the sound of My stopped heart!!!
A MUST HAVE!!!!

xvunderx
09-01-2004, 09:10 PM
I'm looking forward to that one ending up in my car at some point.

xsecx
09-01-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by xvunderx
I'm looking forward to that one ending up in my car at some point.

it's just a matter of going into mine and taking it out.

FuckConformity
09-02-2004, 08:49 AM
Thanks flame_still_burns.

I didn't know about that site. It's fantastic though I couldn't find any A18 lyrics.

And yeah, Dear Furious is fucking cool.

xsecx
09-02-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Thanks flame_still_burns.

I didn't know about that site. It's fantastic though I couldn't find any A18 lyrics.

And yeah, Dear Furious is fucking cool.

why aren't they with the record you bought?

hint: go buy the record since I'm guessing that's why you don't have the lyrics.

FuckConformity
09-02-2004, 10:27 AM
I could probably buy it on amazon, but since a friend gave me the mp3s, I won't waste the money now.

In Denmark you can't just go into a shop and grap from the shelf all the hardcore you want, cos it's quite simple; they don't sell much hardcore in Denmark, especially not foreign bands, like A18. The amazon-way would make it way more difficult, when all I wanted were the lyrics.

----

And by the way, flame_still_burns, you actually gave me just what I wanted, the first line. I couldn't really understand what he said, but I hoped he said: "I fucking hate you... and your fascist way", though I was afraid of getting disappointed, when someone would tell me the correct wording. And then I was.

But hey, what the fuck, the music is still great!

xsecx
09-02-2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
I could probably buy it on amazon, but since a friend gave me the mp3s, I won't waste the money now.

In Denmark you can't just go into a shop and grap from the shelf all the hardcore you want, cos it's quite simple; they don't sell much hardcore in Denmark, especially not foreign bands, like A18. The amazon-way would make it way more difficult, when all I wanted were the lyrics.



yeah, but that's exactly the point. you like the music, but you don't want to support the band? How is it wasting money to support an independent band? Do you think they don't deserve your money?

And I'm sure victory would ship to denmark. or that you have record stores.

straightXed
09-02-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
yeah, but that's exactly the point. you like the music, but you don't want to support the band? How is it wasting money to support an independent band? Do you think they don't deserve your money?

And I'm sure victory would ship to denmark. or that you have record stores.

yeah i plan on ordering it from victory, i have most of the album on mp3's and could quite easily get it all but i am buying the album because i like the band.

FuckConformity
09-02-2004, 03:06 PM
If I was to buy an album only to support a band, I would not buy it through any capitalistic label. Is A18's record company capitalistic?

Cos I don't see why I should support a capitalist if it is not necessary.

Furthermore it seems as if you have got the perception that I don't buy records at all, and that I won't support the artists. I have bought many records, especially those by indie bands.

xsecx
09-02-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
If I was to buy an album only to support a band, I would not buy it through any capitalistic label. Is A18's record company capitalistic?

Cos I don't see why I should support a capitalist if it is not necessary.

Furthermore it seems as if you have got the perception that I don't buy records at all, and that I won't support the artists. I have bought many records, especially those by indie bands.

Then buy it directly from the band. Using bullshit like capitalism is just an excuse to get shit without paying people who deserve it. And you're living in a capitalist country, you are a capitalist so any comment to the contrary is both hypocritical and pointless.

And by your own admission you aren't supporting this indie band so everything else is irrelevant.

FuckConformity
09-02-2004, 04:56 PM
First of all, that people listen to your music and come to your gigs is the best support you can get.

The economy comes in second place. Indie bands do usually not play because of the money they can make, however, they need it to make an income and to survive, especially in the US.

Thus if you can't prove that the indie band in question has its own label, and the money that I pay, isn't fully given to the producers (by those I mean the band and those who mix etc.), there is no reason why I should buy the record.

If I could buy the record directly from A18's website, maybe I would do that, cos then I would be reassured that A18 will get the money I pay.

If you still think, and I guess you do, that I still don't support the band, then you're right. I can't argue with you; cos in this case, regarding A18, I just haven't bought the record. Perhaps that is asocial, I don't know. But there isn't really any more to it.

I just don't think that cultural experiences, such as listening, live or not, to music, shouldn't cost anything. We should share the work, that means that we should all produce the necessary, basic commodities and we should all have a chance to make music.

xsecx
09-02-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
First of all, that people listen to your music and come to your gigs is the best support you can get.

The economy comes in second place. Indie bands do usually not play because of the money they can make, however, they need it to make an income and to survive, especially in the US.

Thus if you can't prove that the indie band in question has its own label, and the money that I pay, isn't fully given to the producers (by those I mean the band and those who mix etc.), there is no reason why I should buy the record.

If I could buy the record directly from A18's website, maybe I would do that, cos then I would be reassured that A18 will get the money I pay.

If you still think, and I guess you do, that I still don't support the band, then you're right. I can't argue with you; cos in this case, regarding A18, I just haven't bought the record. Perhaps that is asocial, I don't know. But there isn't really any more to it.

I just don't think that cultural experiences, such as listening, live or not, to music, shouldn't cost anything. We should share the work, that means that we should all produce the necessary, basic commodities and we should all have a chance to make music.

your personal politics don't change reality. The reality is this is a band you're claiming to like, but refusing to support to help them make more music. Records cost money. Touring costs money. Where you do you think it all comes from? These are guys in their 30s with lives and some with familes. Do you think they can/should pay out of their own pockets so you can steal from them? How do you think the equipment gets bought? Where do you think the money comes from to tour? The bottom line is that you don't want to spend money on music. Yet you want to consume that music. Putting politics around it just means you're trying to justify the fact that you're cheap and would rather spend money on other things. which is bullshit.

flame_still_burns
09-02-2004, 05:05 PM
the biggest dissapointment to me about these records is neither of the victory releases have been on vinyl. and i'm a vinyl junkie.

in fact my damage control 'what it takes' hand screened european tour press #173/200 arrived in the mail today just as i got home from working the last 5 days. woohoo!

xsecx
09-03-2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by flame_still_burns
the biggest dissapointment to me about these records is neither of the victory releases have been on vinyl. and i'm a vinyl junkie.

in fact my damage control 'what it takes' hand screened european tour press #173/200 arrived in the mail today just as i got home from working the last 5 days. woohoo!

I thought mike was planning on doing them when he relaunched new age?

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 10:00 AM
Ok, let's say I am talking bullshit, xsecx.

But what is your attitude then to mp3s in general? I'm thinking, is it only when you like a band, you are to pay? And should it never be allowed to listen to music unless you have paid?

Example: I get 'Dear Furious' for free on mp3s, and think it's fucking bad.

In this case, I should still pay for the music, because I have consumed the product. You can't for example neither just taste some food in a store to see if you like, without paying for it at first.

Your argumentation can also be used on this example:

If I listen to the radio, and 'A18 - Stab You Through The Everything' is on airplay all of the time. Should I then buy the record anyway, even though it is shite? Cos you know, as you say, I have consumed the product.

xsecx
09-03-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Ok, let's say I am talking bullshit, xsecx.

But what is your attitude then to mp3s in general? I'm thinking, is it only when you like a band, you are to pay? And should it never be allowed to listen to music unless you have paid?

Example: I get 'Dear Furious' for free on mp3s, and think it's fucking bad.

In this case, I should still pay for the music, because I have consumed the product. You can't for example neither just taste some food in a store to see if you like, without paying for it at first.

Your argumentation can also be used on this example:

If I listen to the radio, and 'A18 - Stab You Through The Everything' is on airplay all of the time. Should I then buy the record anyway, even though it is shite? Cos you know, as you say, I have consumed the product.

If you get mp3s and you like the music, you buy the music. It's pretty simple. You liked the music enough to find out the lyrics, but for some reason don't believe you should support the band to help encourage them to make more music.

I like how you've tried to completely misstated my point to somehow justifiy your own shitty behavior. At no point did I say anything about listening to something once and paying for it. The entire point is that you got mp3s and you like the band. You will continue to listen to this record without giving anything for it. Without contributing anything to help that band continue to make more music. That makes you a dick. it's pretty simple.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 10:45 AM
you're talking about my level of argumentation?

"That makes you a dick. it's pretty simple.", and yours?

----

As to the discussion; you wanna oversimplify the issue. However, it is not simple.

What about the bad band whose mp3s you also have... you shouldn't support their families? Though you have "consumed the music" (listened to the music).

You can't differ between good and bad music, either you have consumed the music or not. If you have consumed it then you have to buy it as well.

xsecx
09-03-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
you're talking about my level of argumentation?

"That makes you a dick. it's pretty simple.", and yours?

----

As to the discussion; you wanna oversimplify the issue. However, it is not simple.

What about the bad band whose mp3s you also have... you shouldn't support their families? Though you have "consumed the music" (listened to the music).

You can't differ between good and bad music, either you have consumed the music or not. If you have consumed it then you have to buy it as well.

It is that simple. If I try something and I don't like it, that's one thing. It's something completely different to like something and use it repeatedly and not contribute. Like I said before, you're just a dick and a leech.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 11:02 AM
I see you don't want to discuss this issue, and that is fine by me, but that does not mean that you're right and I'm wrong. And it does definitely not make me a dick or a leech.

You're the leech evading my questions.

xsecx
09-03-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
I see you don't want to discuss this issue, and that is fine by me, but that does not mean that you're right and I'm wrong. And it does definitely not make me a dick or a leech.

You're the leech evading my questions.

Dude. you admittidly don't pay for music that you like and actively refuse to support bands that you listen to. That makes you a dick. and it also makes you a leech.

There's no issue to discuss no point to your questions. You are stealing. That's not an opinion. You are actively refusing to pay for something that you use. If you download, keep and continue to listen to music you don't like, then that's a whole seperate issue dealing with sanity first and theft second, however it has no relevancy on the case at hand.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 11:24 AM
Yeah, I have admitted that I haven't paid for the A18 record, do you want me to apologise to you or what?!

(that part of the discussion is not interesting anymore, as I have admitted the whole thing.)

------

The other part is to try and put it into perspective. Thus to see if I'm the only dick or most people on the earth are dicks.

The perspective is the questions that I have raised. Have you got the mp3s of a bad band, and haven't paid for it, you're no dick, cos you shouldn't support the bad band. That is basically what you say.

My argument was that even though you do not listen to the music over a longer period, you have still consumed it.

As I said it is like when you are in a store. Would you then open the bag of new potato chips, taste them, and only buy it if you liked it. Cos that is the exact same thing. A product is a product.

It is not the length of the period you consume a product within that decides whether you are to buy it as well. It is just the fact that you have consumed it.

xsecx
09-03-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Yeah, I have admitted that I haven't paid for the A18 record, do you want me to apologise to you or what?!

(that part of the discussion is not interesting anymore, as I have admitted the whole thing.)

------

The other part is to try and put it into perspective. Thus to see if I'm the only dick or most people on the earth are dicks.

The perspective is the questions that I have raised. Have you got the mp3s of a bad band, and haven't paid for it, you're no dick, cos you shouldn't support the bad band. That is basically what you say.

My argument was that even though you do not listen to the music over a longer period, you have still consumed it.

As I said it is like when you are in a store. Would you then open the bag of new potato chips, taste them, and only buy it if you liked it. Cos that is the exact same thing. A product is a product.

It is not the length of the period you consume a product within that decides whether you are to buy it as well. It is just the fact that you have consumed it.

Your analogy doesn't work. One is provided as a sample, especially in terms of independent bands providing mp3s to get people to listen to and buy their music. THe other is simply taking. The idea of taking a potato chip that is given as a sample and then taking the whole bag and putting it under your shirt and walking out is far more accurate. There is a difference between sampling something to see if you like it and consuming it over and over again. There's no way around the fact that what you're doing is theft. and it does make you a dick and leech. Like I've said many times before you don't really have point since you don't even live in line with the shit you're trying to spew, since you don't either give money to all bands, or no bands.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 11:42 AM
Let's take an example with a product which you can consume on and on, then.

Software.

Does the use of software which you have downloaded for free (and I guess you have done that) make the people (and you too), using those products, dicks?

Cos these programmers have also spent time and money on the software.

Do you contribute with a little amount of money everytime you download some kind of software?

straightXed
09-03-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Let's take an example with a product which you can consume on and on, then.

Software.

Does the use of software which you have downloaded for free (and I guess you have done that) make the people (and you too), using those products, dicks?

Cos these programmers have also spent time and money on the software.

Do you contribute with a little amount of money everytime you download some kind of software?

if the software company puts out free software i use it, if i want a fuller version with more benifits i pay instead but thats my personal choice the difference is this is not an independant band and the people have already been paid for their work by the company they work for, independent bands do not run the same as international corperations as far as i know.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 11:56 AM
A lot of programs and plugins are produced by private persons. Today someone licenses them under the copyleft or the GNU, others don't.

The bottomline is that a lot of people produce software or anything like that without getting paid for it.

And it does not only have to be software. Everything you find on the Internet and afterwards use is a product of a man's or woman's work. You do not pay for that either.

straightXed
09-03-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
A lot of programs and plugins are produced by private persons. Today someone licenses them under the copyleft or the GNU, others don't.

The bottomline is that a lot of people produce software or anything like that without getting paid for it.

And it does not only have to be software. Everything you find on the Internet and afterwards use is a product of a man's or woman's work. You do not pay for that either.

do they willingly put it out there? this site has taken time and labour but i don't pay for it do i but neither am i stealing it or doing wrong by the person who runs the site. If someone wants to make software for free then thats up to them the bands however are not asking you to copy there cd's and give it away free, i mean why don't we ask them? just so we can be clear on how the band intended things to go with the cd.

and this all doesn't justify you not supporting the band does it?

xsecx
09-03-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Let's take an example with a product which you can consume on and on, then.

Software.

Does the use of software which you have downloaded for free (and I guess you have done that) make the people (and you too), using those products, dicks?

Cos these programmers have also spent time and money on the software.

Do you contribute with a little amount of money everytime you download some kind of software?

if it's shareware and you continue to use it and don't pay people, then yes you're being a dick. Now, the bettter and more accurate example of what you're doing would be the downloading of a demo version of a program, liking it and using it all the time, and then going and downloading the full pirated version for free. and yes that makes you a dick too.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 12:19 PM
From your point of view and your argumentation, no, it does not.

But that isn't the point. The point is that in the 21st century, we all steal and are all leeches, you too.

-----

Most programmers make programs and plugins for the same reasons as those who make music: They like doing what they do, and they want people to like it too; therefore they release it.

Music is not different from other products. You can't differ in this situation.

straightXed
09-03-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
From your point of view and your argumentation, no, it does not.

But that isn't the point. The point is that in the 21st century, we all steal and are all leeches, you too.

-----

Most programmers make programs and plugins for the same reasons as those who make music: They like doing what they do, and they want people to like it too; therefore they release it.

Music is not different from other products. You can't differ in this situation.

i'm sorry but that is the worst most unsubstantial comeback i have ever come across. but i shall grace it with a reply. So what is it i am taking without consent? its not a matter of making music different to other products, the fact is you are trying to change the fact you are stealing it. you stole it and you are trying to liken it to something that is ok, the band wants you to buy the cd to support them, they aren't all about money but they would like to keep making music in order for that to happen they need support, they put that cd out in return for a price you have chosen to forgoe that price and take the album without paying the price they were asking for there work, i'm guessing you also have a lot of pirate software and when you say against conformity you really mean against having to work to pay for things - just go and buy the album you dozy cheapskate.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 01:04 PM
I do want to be scapegoat of everybody's thefts.

I have admitted that I stole the record; end of discussion, at least that part of the discussion.

This is a fundamental issue: Should it be legal to download any kind of music, software or written work for free which is produced buy an independent person.

Your attitude to this issue is that we should all pay for all the products (music, basic commodities, software and so on) which we consume (use).

You haven't argued why you don't think you, and all the others arguing like you, and me as well, should pay for software, plugins, and reports, texts and so on they download from the Internet frequently.

xsecx
09-03-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
I do want to be scapegoat of everybody's thefts.

I have admitted that I stole the record; end of discussion, at least that part of the discussion.

This is a fundamental issue: Should it be legal to download any kind of music, software or written work for free which is produced buy an independent person.

Your attitude to this issue is that we should all pay for all the products (music, basic commodities, software and so on) which we consume (use).

You haven't argued why you don't think you, and all the others arguing like you, and me as well, should pay for software, plugins, and reports, texts and so on they download from the Internet frequently.

you seem to think your opinon on should and shouldn't be is somehow relevant. It isn't. If someone is selling something and you get it for free and it wasn't given to you by that person, it's stealing. Whether you think it should ot shouldn't be legal is irrelevant, because it is. And it's theft. There is no higher issue here to argue and that's what you're failing to understand. You're a leech. You are taking from things and not contributing anything in return.

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 01:19 PM
oops, a little correction: "I do want to be the scapegoat" was to have been "I do NOT want..."

FuckConformity
09-03-2004, 02:09 PM
As I have understood the "support the artists"-thing, it was not to say, "hey, you didn't pay. You are a thief. Don't you see the price ticket. Pay now or we turn you in". At least I have never heard them state that.

The artists want that we support them with amounts of money, so that they can subsist. But what they want the more, as I have understood it, is that people listen to their music or use their software.

Thus, yeah, I steal and I don't support because I don't pay, but they aren't interested in the individual. They just want to be sure they get the money necessary for them to survive, as human beings and as musicians. So if they were to get that money through social benefits, then they'd be fucking happy and satisfied.

What I am trying to say is that we should support the artists then we should support the programmers. Even though they don't demand it. The programmers of free programs and plugins have expenses too. As we pay indie bands because we wanna thank them for the music and not because the price ticket says so, we should support the programmers as well because we are grateful for their work.

(By the way. I know that I don't pay all indie bands, such as A18, and many programmers as well, but it was to see it from your point of view [or what the fuck it is called in English, can't come up with the right word, sorry], cos I have admitted all my thefts.)

straightXed
09-03-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
I do want to be scapegoat of everybody's thefts.

I have admitted that I stole the record; end of discussion, at least that part of the discussion.

This is a fundamental issue: Should it be legal to download any kind of music, software or written work for free which is produced buy an independent person.

Your attitude to this issue is that we should all pay for all the products (music, basic commodities, software and so on) which we consume (use).

You haven't argued why you don't think you, and all the others arguing like you, and me as well, should pay for software, plugins, and reports, texts and so on they download from the Internet frequently.

its not the end of the theft part of the discussion if you can't justify it. I think the software agrument is irrelevent. Lets keep it to hardcore and you think you shouldn't pay for it, well lets say no one pays for it and then the band is left with what, everyone gets the enjoyment out of the record and the band get shat on, sounds great.

So you are asking should it be legal to steal an independent persons income, no corperation to take the sting away from the workers, the independent person will feel more of a sting than a big company and why, is it because you are holding on to your capital?

And tell me this are you saying you shouldn't pay for all the products you consume?

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 10:53 AM
No, I can't justify that I didn't support A18 or that I didn't support the programmer of my winamp skin (for example). You're right.

And the band will probably stop writing and playing music. That is the bittersweet consequence of my and all the other fans' asocial behaviour if they can't get social benefits.

It's the same with the programmer. At a time (they often start programming at a young age), he will have to get a job too because he doesn't make an income by programming independently. The reason why he can't demand people to pay for it is that others will just make the exact same product for free. Therefore a gift of gratitude, for example money, would be appreciated, I think.

But the fact is that you apply double standards. You will only support the scene, I guess, you have dedicated you life to.

Finally, I would just point out to you, once again, that no one pays for all the products he or she consumes. And if you think I'm the king of all leeches, then it's ok, I guess.

(I found out, just in time before posting the reply, that another person has taken over, but I guess you are of the same opinion, so it really doesn't matter.)

-----

As to the capitalism-thing. It's not a capitalistic act, not to buy the record. And I haven't got any capital in the marxist sense of the word; I don't exploit the workers (that is the band) and thereby making a big, fat profit. So stop using that argumentation.
But as I haven't paid for it, I guess you can say that I am holding on to my money, but NOT my capital.

straightXed
09-04-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
No, I can't justify that I didn't support A18 or that I didn't support the programmer of my winamp skin (for example). You're right.

And the band will probably stop writing and playing music. That is the bittersweet consequence of my and all the other fans' asocial behaviour if they can't get social benefits.

It's the same with the programmer. At a time (they often start programming at a young age), he will have to get a job too because he doesn't make an income by programming independently. The reason why he can't demand people to pay for it is that others will just make the exact same product for free. Therefore a gift of gratitude, for example money, would be appreciated, I think.

But the fact is that you apply double standards. You will only support the scene, I guess, you have dedicated you life to.

Finally, I would just point out to you, once again, that no one pays for all the products he or she consumes. And if you think I'm the king of all leeches, then it's ok, I guess.

(I found out, just in time before posting the reply, that another person has taken over, but I guess you are of the same opinion, so it really doesn't matter.)

-----

As to the capitalism-thing. It's not a capitalistic act, not to buy the record. And I haven't got any capital in the marxist sense of the word; I don't exploit the workers (that is the band) and thereby making a big, fat profit. So stop using that argumentation.
But as I haven't paid for it, I guess you can say that I am holding on to my money, but NOT my capital.

well if you can't justify it why do you do it?

so if the band was to stop writing and playing and working in other areas what would you have echieved except for petty theft?

if there is another band giving away their music for free why do you steal A18's music?


do you have any human capital? Is your labour not your capital? do you not exchange this for money? is most capital not grouped and valued in monetry terms? the argumentation stands, in a wider scheme of things you are protecting your capital. You think there is only one way to exploit a worker, you have profited by gaining a product without paying the band picks up the cost,that's exploitive.

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 01:39 PM
A thief = a capitalist. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

----

I've said all I can about my thefts, and admitted that I'm a thief. A thief can never justify his thefts, and he still does it. I don't really wanna discuss the fact that I don't support A18 anymore, when you won't realize that you don't support independent programmers.

Why won't you answer my questions? Since you don't, I guess, I'm right then. You have double standards.

straightXed
09-04-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
A thief = a capitalist. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

----

I've said all I can about my thefts, and admitted that I'm a thief. A thief can never justify his thefts, and he still does it. I don't really wanna discuss the fact that I don't support A18 anymore, when you won't realize that you don't support independent programmers.

Why won't you answer my questions? Since you don't, I guess, I'm right then. You have double standards.

i don't steal there software, i pay for my software, you wanna tell me what software i've stolen?

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 02:20 PM
ok, it was maybe a bit unfair to accuse you, I'm still thinking that you are xsecx.

And I still think that some of those "support the artists" guys apply double standards, for example xsecx cos he said implicitly that he downloads programs for free.

But I guess you're an honest man, so then I ask you. Have you ever downloaded any software (programs, plugins etc.) for free?

xsecx
09-04-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
ok, it was maybe a bit unfair to accuse you, I'm still thinking that you are xsecx.

And I still think that some of those "support the artists" guys apply double standards, for example xsecx cos he said implicitly that he downloads programs for free.

But I guess you're an honest man, so then I ask you. Have you ever downloaded any software (programs, plugins etc.) for free?

I download open source programs. I'm involved with open source testing. How am I having double standards? Software and music aren't eqivalent. Programmers aren't the same as musicians. THere is a world of difference between piracy and downloading something that was made for the intention of being downloaded and used for free.

The difference here is that you're taking it on yourself to decide intent of musicians and that they'd rather be listened to rather than paid for their work. This doesn't hold when someone themselves says download my stuff for free, i don't care. But that isn't what's being discussed here.

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 02:49 PM
Well, what I don't understand is why you shouldn't support ( not pay what the price ticket says, but SUPPORT. See 1 ) independent programmers when you're grateful for their work, but are willing to support hardcore artists because you are grateful for their work as well.

As to the initial issue (that is: why I don't support A18), I don't really see what there is to discuss. I thought your conclusion (the conclusion is usually the end of an issue) which I accepted was that I was a dick and a leech.

1: It's the same with the programmer. At a time (they often start programming at a young age), he will have to get a job too because he doesn't make an income by programming independently. The reason why he can't demand people to pay for it is that others will just make the exact same product for free. Therefore a gift of gratitude, for example money, would be appreciated, I think.

xsecx
09-04-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Well, what I don't understand is why you shouldn't support ( not pay what the price ticket says, but SUPPORT. See 1 ) independent programmers when you're grateful for their work, but are willing to support hardcore artists because you are grateful for their work as well.

As to the initial issue (that is: why I don't support A18), I don't really see what there is to discuss. I thought your conclusion (the conclusion is usually the end of an issue) which I accepted was that I was a dick and a leech.

1: It's the same with the programmer. At a time (they often start programming at a young age), he will have to get a job too because he doesn't make an income by programming independently. The reason why he can't demand people to pay for it is that others will just make the exact same product for free. Therefore a gift of gratitude, for example money, would be appreciated, I think.

I like how it's up to you to decide what people want and don't want. There are people who make music for the sake of it. There are people who make software for the sake of it. There are however people who make music for other reasons. There are however people who make software for other reasons. Unless someone is saying use my stuff for free, then what you do with it, really isn't up to you. That's the entire point. No matter how you try and justify it, you're wrong.

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 03:05 PM
Oh, I didn't know you were talking about Britney Spears. Why didn't you say?!

I won't decide why people make music. That was definitely not my intention.
However, if they do it for the sake of the money, then I don't really care.

xsecx
09-04-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
Oh, I didn't know you were talking about Britney Spears. Why didn't you say?!

I won't decide why people make music. That was definitely not my intention.
However, if they do it for the sake of the money, then I don't really care.

all you're doing in this entire argument is trying to decide peoples intentions. if someone is charging a fee for something and decide to steal it, then that's pretty much it. so enjoy your life of stealing.

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 03:47 PM
I'm fucking not.

You said that some play music, so they earn money.

In reply to that I said: Ok, if that's the case, then I do not really care if they are forced to stop releasing music.

(To say that this sentence is to decide their intentions, THAT is fucked up.)

FuckConformity
09-04-2004, 03:49 PM
And by the way. Enjoy your life of not supporting programmers.

xsecx
09-04-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by FuckConformity
I'm fucking not.

You said that some play music, so they earn money.

In reply to that I said: Ok, if that's the case, then I do not really care if they are forced to stop releasing music.

(To say that this sentence is to decide their intentions, THAT is fucked up.)

no dumbass the rest of your comments about everything is is where you decided the intentions of every artist and programmer ever.

xJoeyNormalx
11-01-2004, 02:11 AM
1) I'm a dirty pirate.
2) Piracy isn't stealing, legally or ethically.
3) Stealing doesn't merely involve you acquiring a product illegally; it involves depriving another of it.
4) This argument is lame.
5) A18, on the other hand, is fucking awesome.
6) Yes, I bought Dear Furious.
7) I would have earlier, but it took me a long, long time to grow used to his vocals.
8) Then I downloaded the new video off their site, and got converted.
9) It's better to bump an old thread than post a new one.
10) A18 deserve the money, eatarse, go buy the CD.

straightXed
11-01-2004, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
1) I'm a dirty pirate.
2) Piracy isn't stealing, legally or ethically.
3) Stealing doesn't merely involve you acquiring a product illegally; it involves depriving another of it.


piracy is stealing, legally and ethically. The product you are stealing their paycheck.

xsecx
11-01-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
1) I'm a dirty pirate.
2) Piracy isn't stealing, legally or ethically.
3) Stealing doesn't merely involve you acquiring a product illegally; it involves depriving another of it.
4) This argument is lame.

wow you just like making words to mean different things all over the place. Are you even aware of what a dictionary is?

xvunderx
11-01-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
wow you just like making words to mean different things all over the place. Are you even aware of what a dictionary is?

Yeah, he's writing it!

xJoeyNormalx
11-01-2004, 03:04 PM
Sigh, see points four, five and six. I came into this thread to talk about how fucking good this CD is. If you really must argue, then...fine.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

THEFT:

The action of a thief; the felonious taking away of the personal goods of another; larceny; also, with a and pl., an instance of this.
b. by theft, stealthily, furtively, by secret craft. Obs. rare1.
2. concr. That which is or has been stolen; the proceeds of thieving. Now rare.

STEAL:

I. To take dishonestly or secretly.

1. a. trans. To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging to another); esp. to do this secretly or unobserved by the owner or the person in charge. Const. from (earlier dat.).
b. with of used partitively. Obs.
c. with away, out, over.
d. In wider sense: To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial).
e. esp. To plagiarize; to pass off (another's work) as one's own; to ‘borrow’ improperly (words, expressions). Also absol.
f. To derive obscurely and dishonourably. nonce-use.
g. With a person as quasi-obj., in phr. to steal (someone) blind, to rob or cheat (someone) totally or mercilessly. colloq. (orig. N. Amer.).
2. absol. and intr. To commit or practise theft. Const. dat. of person.
3. a. trans. To take away by stratagem or by eluding observation (something that is in the possession or keeping of another).
b. with away; rarely with other advs., as down, over.
c. Of an impersonal agent.
d. To carry off (young animals) from the dam.
e. To carry off, abduct, kidnap (a person) secretly. Now rare.
g. dial. To catch (wild-fowl). ? Obs.
4. In various applications with immaterial obj. a. To cause the loss of, take away (something valued, e.g. happiness, a person's life, etc.).
b. To take without permission (esp. a kiss). Also (cf. sense 6) to give (a kiss) to a person.
c. To conceal improperly. (Cf. 5.) Obs.
d. To gain by secret or unobtrusive means. Obs.
e. To take (time) by contrivance from its ordinary employment, sleep, etc. to devote to some other purpose.
f. To gain possession of, or to entice away from another (a person's heart, affections, etc.).
g. To adopt or ‘borrow’ (what belongs to another art). Obs.
h. to steal (the) picture, scene, show: (colloq. (orig. U.S.)) in theatrical contexts, to outshine unexpectedly the rest of the cast; also transf., to become or make oneself the centre of attention; to steal (one's) thunder: see THUNDER n. 3c.
5. a. To effect or accomplish clandestinely or unperceived; to get opportunity for (an action) by contrivance.
b. With complementary adj. or adv. to steal oneself drunk: to get drunk secretly. to steal down (Sc.): to cause to fall, ruin, by secret means.
c. To direct (a look), breathe (a sigh) furtively.
d. to steal a marriage: to get married secretly. Obs. [Cf. Gr. .]
e. to steal a march: in military sense, to succeed in moving troops without the knowledge of the enemy; hence gen. to get a secret advantage over a rival or opponent. Const. on, upon, of.
f. To get a hasty glance at. Obs.
g. In various games, esp. Cricket, Golf, Baseball, Basketball, and Ice Hockey (see quots.). Also fig. Also intr. (in Baseball), esp. in to steal home.
6. a. To place, move, or convey stealthily. Now somewhat rare. to steal on: to put on (one's clothes, etc.) hastily, so as not to be observed (obs.). to steal (some one or something) in: to smuggle in, procure secret entrance for.
b. To fire (a gun) stealthily. Obs.
c. Of a hen: To make (her nest) in a concealed place. Also U.S. of a ewe: To bring forth (lambs) out of season.
7. techn. To omit or suppress (some out of a usual number of parts of a structure). a. Naut. (See quot.) b. Netting. (? Implied in STOLEN ppl. a.)

I have omitted the second category of meanings, as they all to do with silent and secretive motion.

PIRACY

The action or practice of a pirate.

1. a. The practice or crime of robbery and depredation on the sea or navigable rivers, etc., or by descent from the sea upon the coast, by persons not holding a commission from an established civilized state; with a and pl., a single act or crime of this kind.
2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.

Although it could be argued that certain of the more general variants of stealing could be construed to include piracy, I would disagree. The vast majority of the definitions of stealing listed above in the OED – used as the standard legal dictionary in most if not all Commonwealth countries – include some element of taking away or carrying off. In the case of piracy, something not being taken but merely reproduced. Stealing and piracy, then, are two distinct things.

It seems to me that even if you believe, as many do, that both are unethical, stealing is obviously the worse of the two. Not only is it illicitly acquiring something for yourself, but it is taking that thing away from someone else.

The only thing taken in the case of piracy is potential profit. I cannot see any validity in most instances of this argument. Were I to pirate a CD which I would have bought otherwise, as the unfortunate originator of this debate did, then this argument would hold water. I do not, however, do so. If I believe an artist is of merit and deserves my support, I will support him. If, however, I never intended to buy a song or CD, what profits are lost? I would never have bought the CD anyway! How is a paycheck a product? It wouldn’t even be produced until I bought the CD. Which I, uh, wouldn’t. Ergo, it doesn’t exist. How can I steal something that does not even exist? It makes no sense.

Ethically, then, although from a Western capitalistic ethical and political tradition both are unethical, they aren’t the same bloody thing. One is worse than the other.

Legally, I believe it is the same. Both are illegal, yes. However, this does not make them legally the same; jay-walking and murder are both illegal, and no one would use this as a basis to equate the two. I am certain that the law deals with breaches of intellectual property differently than it does theft. I could prove this in a New Zealand context with a trip up to the Davis Law Library at uni, but I’ve just finished my exams and I really cannot be bothered. In a US context, I am no expert, but the example of the Kazaa piracy cases seems a clear precedent, and as I recall, these were carried out as a private case under the civil law, whereas theft is dealt with under the criminal law by state prosecution.

Now, please, quit the personal bullshit. It is entirely possible to debate – although I’m not sure if our man Sec realises this – to debate something politely and retain mutual respect.

In other news, Dear Furious is a good CD.

xsecx
11-01-2004, 03:17 PM
mutual respect is earned.
respect is not earned when you can't back up what you say, when you can't make decent argument for what you believe other than it's what everyone around you thinks.

also, your dictionary is flawed as your logic.

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stE(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto·len /'stO-l&n/; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive senses
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

Main Entry: pi·ra·cy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

number 1 and number 3. you're taking a using someone elses property. it is theft. What you think on the matter is irrevelant as that is what the courts have decided. the fact that you're trying to argue you're stealing something that doesn't exist is equally irrelevant. It's both civil and criminal to steal intellectual property.

xJoeyNormalx
11-01-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
mutual respect is earned.
respect is not earned when you can't back up what you say, when you can't make decent argument for what you believe other than it's what everyone around you thinks.

There is a subtle difference between having respect for someone and treating them with a modicum of mutual respect. I will continue to attempt to argue with you politely and maturely, even if you are unable to do the same to me.

I would like to restate, however, for what must be the fourth or fifth time, that I came into this thread about A18 to express my appreciation for Dear Furious, which I did indeed buy.


Originally posted by xsecx
[B]also, your dictionary is flawed as your logic.

My dictionary is the legal standard in the majority of Commonwealth countries. I'm not sure how the mere fact that your prefered choice disagrees slightly with it establishes that it is flawed. The OED is certainly far more comprehensive.

On the issue of American law, as I have work soon, I don't have time to read through the site you sent me in IM fully, but it certainly seems a strong supporter of your position.

I therefore concede the point. Legally, American law considers piracy to be theft. In my opinion, that's pretty damn silly, but...


Originally posted by xsecx
[B]
Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stE(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto·len /'stO-l&n/; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive senses
1 : to [b]take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

I have bolded the key word. I am not taking; I am merely copying. It seems a little ironic that there are definitions in the much more comprehensive OED that omit the word take, and therefore could better support your position.


Originally posted by xsecx

Main Entry: pi·ra·cy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

number 1 and number 3. you're taking a using someone elses property. it is theft. What you think on the matter is irrevelant as that is what the courts have decided. the fact that you're trying to argue you're stealing something that doesn't exist is equally irrelevant. It's both civil and criminal to steal intellectual property.

I cannot see how number one is relevant. When I used to Soulseek to download Converge's You Fail Me, which I intend to buy in the next week because I like to support artists of their merit, I was not swinging through the rigging with a cutlas in my teeth. I'm not certain how you feel that piracy in the context under discussion resembles that at sea.

The third definition is the one at issue. It does not mention the word steal.

Even if piracy legally is a form of stealing in the US, I retain the right to argue both that they are not ethically equivilent and that the words do not mean the same thing. Both the OED and MW support the latter of those positions, and my argument above supports the former. Both may be unethical, but surely it is much worse to deprive someone of their lawful property rather than merely making a copy of it for your own ends?

xsecx
11-01-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
There is a subtle difference between having respect for someone and treating them with a modicum of mutual respect. I will continue to attempt to argue with you politely and maturely, even if you are unable to do the same to me.


when you fail to back up your statements with well, thoughtout responses, why should I respect you or what you say? Especially when the lynchpin of your arguement is/was "because all my friends think so"



My dictionary is the legal standard in the majority of Commonwealth countries. I'm not sure how the mere fact that your prefered choice disagrees slightly with it establishes that it is flawed. The OED is certainly far more comprehensive.


since when do you think I'm talking about just this instance?



On the issue of American law, as I have work soon, I don't have time to read through the site you sent me in IM fully, but it certainly seems a strong supporter of your position.

I therefore concede the point. Legally, American law considers piracy to be theft. In my opinion, that's pretty damn silly, but...


How is it silly, when that's what it is? You are taking something from someone else. Whether or not it's something physical is completely irrelevant.



I have bolded the key word. I am not taking; I am merely copying. It seems a little ironic that there are definitions in the much more comprehensive OED that omit the word take, and therefore could better support your position.


You're taking it from another place. even if you are taking it from your friends cd you're still taking it from somewhere.



I cannot see how number one is relevant. When I used to Soulseek to download Converge's You Fail Me, which I intend to buy in the next week because I like to support artists of their merit, I was not swinging through the rigging with a cutlas in my teeth. I'm not certain how you feel that piracy in the context under discussion resembles that at sea.


of course I could be talking about number 1 from the first definition and number 3 from the second.



The third definition is the one at issue. It does not mention the word steal.


your point?

Main Entry: rob·bery
Pronunciation: 'rä-b(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ber·ies
: the act or practice of robbing; specifically : larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat

it doesn't say steal there either?



Even if piracy legally is a form of stealing in the US, I retain the right to argue both that they are not ethically equivilent and that the words do not mean the same thing. Both the OED and MW support the latter of those positions, and my argument above supports the former. Both may be unethical, but surely it is much worse to deprive someone of their lawful property rather than merely making a copy of it for your own ends? [/B]

What is the point of arguing if you steal 1 thing or 10000? Trying to justify wrong behavior is pointless.

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 12:55 AM
I have responded to your irrelevant remark about my argument in the other thread in the thread where it belongs.

For quite possibly the tenth time, I will stress that not only did I buy Dear Furious, but I enjoy it greatly and believe A18 deserve my support.

And now I'll launch into another fun semantic argument.


Originally posted by xsecx
since when do you think I'm talking about just this instance?

You stated that my dictionary was as flawed as my logic. I did not rise to the obvious bait, having no wish to fall to your level and make this a personal feud.

I stated that the OED is the legal standard throughout the Commonwealth and that it is more comprehensive than the MW. Here I provided evidence that the OED was not flawed as you said. I then stated that your personal preference in no way supported your claim.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, and you were in fact saying that neither the OED or my logic was flawed. I suppose, indeed, that I should, on reflection, be proud that my reasoning has been compared with something as highly regarded and widely used as the OED. I doubt that you meant it in that sense though...

You have failed utterly to provide me with any credible reason why your chosen dictionary invalidates the defintion I provided from the OED.

Moreover, in the quoted paragraph your reply above was supposedly countering, I did not limit anything to "just this instance", so I really do have no idea quite what your rhetorical question was supposed to prove.


Originally posted by xsecx
How is it silly, when that's what it is?

Uh, no it isn't.


Originally posted by xsecx
You are taking something from someone else. Whether or not it's something physical is completely irrelevant.

What am I taking away, Sec? What is not there that once was? What is taken?

When you take something, physical or otherwise, it moves from being exclusively in one place - again, physical or otherwise - to being exclusively in another place. To steal something is to move something, physically or not, from being the exclusive possession of one person to being the exclusive possession of another without the original owner's position. Not only in theft do you enrich yourself, but you deprive the victim of something.

This is feature of stealing is shown in the word "take". When you take an apple from the fruit bowl, is the apple still in the bowl afterwards, as well as being in your hand? When you take the lead in a race, is the person who was winning before you still first? When someone takes over a company, is the previous owner still the owner?

I would refer you to the OED's definition of "take", but I really do not see the point. You and I both know that the answer to the questions above is no and that taking something involves more than just copying it.



Originally posted by xsecx
[B]You're taking it from another place. even if you are taking it from your friends cd you're still taking it from somewhere.

So, uh, when I rip an MP3 from a friend's CD, the music vanishes from the CD?

This is, of course, all just semantics.



Originally posted by xsecx
[B]of course I could be talking about number 1 from the first definition and number 3 from the second.

Well, you could, but I fail to see why you'd bother refering to the one and only option in the first definition as number one, seeing as there is no number two....



Originally posted by xsecx
[B]your point?

Main Entry: rob·bery
Pronunciation: 'rä-b(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ber·ies
: the act or practice of robbing; specifically : larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat

it doesn't say steal there either?

No, but that is not under debate. I would also be entirely correct is saying that robbery and stealing are different things, just as I am in saying piracy and theft are. The definition above specifies that robbery involves violence or threats, whereas stealing does not necessarily. Ergo, they're different, although many people use the words interchangeably. Maybe they're, uh, writing their own dictionaries.



Originally posted by xsecx

What is the point of arguing if you steal 1 thing or 10000? Trying to justify wrong behavior is pointless.

Justify? When did I ever start trying to justify anything? Maybe my short-term memory is playing up again, but I do believe that I did in fact buy Dear Furious. Why, yes, in fact, it's sitting in front of me now. I seem to recall, in fact, that all I said was that stealing and piracy are not the same thing.

If I was trying to justify piracy, I'd probably start quoting Proudhon and blathering on about propaganda by deed. Fortunately for us both, because that discussion would be even longer and more tedious than this, I'm not trying to.

I'm trying to establish that piracy and stealing are not the same.

Now, no doubt you think that stealing and murder are both unethical. I assume you also agree that they are not the same thing? And that one is worse than the other? Does stating the mere facts that murder is not the same as theft and that murder is more unethical than theft somehow mean that theft is ethical?

Of course it doesn't.

In the same way, I'm arguing that theft and piracy are different without even touching upon whether they are right or wrong.

I will proceed on the basis of two underlying assumptions of the modern Western capitalist market; that property rights are valid and that intellectual property is a valid concept. In actual fact, I don't entirely agree with the former and really don't think that much of the latter. Yes, I'm a dirty lefty. No, I won't be drawn into an argument on that. It would take to long and annoy too many people, me included.

So, those two assumptions leave us with two clear conclusions; piracy is wrong and theft is wrong.

Let us then examine what happens inh the case of each.

With theft, someone not only illicitly gains something, but also deprives the rightful owner of that thing.

Piracy, however, only entails the illicit gain of something. Nothing is taken from the rightful owner. He loses nothing directly, only potential profit.

Is it not self-evident that one of these is worse than the other? One involves not merely a breach of property rights but the actual loss of a possession.

xsecx
11-02-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
You stated that my dictionary was as flawed as my logic. I did not rise to the obvious bait, having no wish to fall to your level and make this a personal feud.

I stated that the OED is the legal standard throughout the Commonwealth and that it is more comprehensive than the MW. Here I provided evidence that the OED was not flawed as you said. I then stated that your personal preference in no way supported your claim.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, and you were in fact saying that neither the OED or my logic was flawed. I suppose, indeed, that I should, on reflection, be proud that my reasoning has been compared with something as highly regarded and widely used as the OED. I doubt that you meant it in that sense though...

You have failed utterly to provide me with any credible reason why your chosen dictionary invalidates the defintion I provided from the OED.

Moreover, in the quoted paragraph your reply above was supposedly countering, I did not limit anything to "just this instance", so I really do have no idea quite what your rhetorical question was supposed to prove.


you want to argue over dictionaries and say that you rose above and didn't want to make this a personal fued? You're the one taking terms like mosh, rules and criteria and making up definitions. You're also the one struggling here.



Uh, no it isn't.


lets revisit shall we "Legally, American law considers piracy to be theft." So a legal body, not joey, has decided that it's theft. and it's also not just the US. go play with google and look up what's going on in the UK too.



What am I taking away, Sec? What is not there that once was? What is taken?


So IP theft doesn't exist? You can't steal ideas. You can only steal physical things? You are trying to argue something that is pointless. That it's not stealing therefore it's not as a bad as something else.



When you take something, physical or otherwise, it moves from being exclusively in one place - again, physical or otherwise - to being exclusively in another place. To steal something is to move something, physically or not, from being the exclusive possession of one person to being the exclusive possession of another without the original owner's position. Not only in theft do you enrich yourself, but you deprive the victim of something.


funny, the law doesn't agree with you.



This is feature of stealing is shown in the word "take". When you take an apple from the fruit bowl, is the apple still in the bowl afterwards, as well as being in your hand? When you take the lead in a race, is the person who was winning before you still first? When someone takes over a company, is the previous owner still the owner?

you can't compare data to real world things. you're trying to operate as if this is the 17th century, and it doesn't apply.



I would refer you to the OED's definition of "take", but I really do not see the point. You and I both know that the answer to the questions above is no and that taking something involves more than just copying it.


and of course you're using terms that were established before data existed.




So, uh, when I rip an MP3 from a friend's CD, the music vanishes from the CD?

This is, of course, all just semantics.


yet you like to waste peoples time arguing them.




Well, you could, but I fail to see why you'd bother refering to the one and only option in the first definition as number one, seeing as there is no number two....


oh shit, joey's wit got deflated when he went back and read what was actually there and thought about it for a second.




No, but that is not under debate. I would also be entirely correct is saying that robbery and stealing are different things, just as I am in saying piracy and theft are. The definition above specifies that robbery involves violence or threats, whereas stealing does not necessarily. Ergo, they're different, although many people use the words interchangeably. Maybe they're, uh, writing their own dictionaries.


HOLY SHIT, STOP THE PRESSES, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A THESAURUS AND EVERY WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT AND NOT AT ALL INTERCHANGABLE, SO SAYETH JOEY.





Justify? When did I ever start trying to justify anything? Maybe my short-term memory is playing up again, but I do believe that I did in fact buy Dear Furious. Why, yes, in fact, it's sitting in front of me now. I seem to recall, in fact, that all I said was that stealing and piracy are not the same thing.


So you have an infinite amount of time to argue terms that most everyone else believes that piracy is a form of stealing.




If I was trying to justify piracy, I'd probably start quoting Proudhon and blathering on about propaganda by deed. Fortunately for us both, because that discussion would be even longer and more tedious than this, I'm not trying to.


then why are you talking?



I'm trying to establish that piracy and stealing are not the same.


when the courts have already ruled that it is a form of stealing. if you don't want to think that, then go right ahead. you also didn't think it was criminal either.



Now, no doubt you think that stealing and murder are both unethical. I assume you also agree that they are not the same thing? And that one is worse than the other? Does stating the mere facts that murder is not the same as theft and that murder is more unethical than theft somehow mean that theft is ethical?


and the releveance is what? does it make you feel better to know that you've done something less unethical than something else, or is this just another caseof you liking to type alot?



In the same way, I'm arguing that theft and piracy are different without even touching upon whether they are right or wrong.


and you're arguing a useless point, since again, it's been identified as a form of theft.



Piracy, however, only entails the illicit gain of something. Nothing is taken from the rightful owner. He loses nothing directly, only potential profit.


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but profit is a thing. and it is something taken away.



Is it not self-evident that one of these is worse than the other? One involves not merely a breach of property rights but the actual loss of a possession. [/B]

They both create loss.

xsecx
11-02-2004, 09:38 AM
look kids. piracy AND theft in one nice package

http://www.cybercrime.gov/levy2rls.htm

so, kids, that means that software and music piracy ARE theft. and what you're stealing is money! groundbreaking!

straightXed
11-02-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
look kids. piracy AND theft in one nice package

http://www.cybercrime.gov/levy2rls.htm

so, kids, that means that software and music piracy ARE theft. and what you're stealing is money! groundbreaking!

well theres a turn up for the books. They will have to re-write the dictionary now!!!!

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 03:28 PM
I have conceded the legal point, Sec. I'm sure you know that. Same with you, StraightXed, you have been these posts, right?

So, congratulations, you've proven a point that's not even at issue any more!


Originally posted by xsecx
you want to argue over dictionaries and say that you rose above and didn't want to make this a personal fued? You're the one taking terms like mosh, rules and criteria and making up definitions. You're also the one struggling here.

No, I am not. I am arguing semantics even though I'd rather not, because it keeps coming up.

In the mosh thread, I was merely arguing that the terms meaning varied from place to place.

In the sex thread, you asked how I defined the term Straight Edge. I did so. You were the first person to use a dictionary in that thread.

In this thread, I refered to the OED to establish a difference in the meaning between the two words. You then argued that your dictionary was better and I responded.

It seems that as you were the first person to use a dictionary and the first to say that yours was better. Who wanted to argue dictionaries again?

I'm also the one who's not making up definitions but, uh, using...the...ones...in...the...dictionary. A radical idea to some, perhaps, who've developed a habit of defining words for themselves, but...


Originally posted by xsecx
lets revisit shall we "Legally, American law considers piracy to be theft." So a legal body, not joey, has decided that it's theft. and it's also not just the US. go play with google and look up what's going on in the UK too.

Sec, I will put this in the plainest possible terms. I was wrong about American law. I made a mistake. You are right,

Legally, piracy is a form of theft. Ethically, I'm arguing that it is not.


Originally posted by xsecx
Blah, blah, personal attacks, blah...

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but profit is a thing. and it is something taken away.

They both create loss.

The profit does not exist until I purchase something. If I would never purchase something, then the profit would never exist. So how can it be taken away?

Is murder the same as theft? Is one more or less unethical?

Do you not agree that it is more unethical to, physically or otherwise, deprive someone else of something they actually own, something that exists in the here and now, unlike profits which won't exist if I don't buy anything, than it is to make a copy of something?

I would argue that theft is doubly wrong. Not only are you infringing on someone's property rights, but you're leaving them without something they had before.

straightXed
11-02-2004, 04:20 PM
Legally, piracy is a form of theft. Ethically, I'm arguing that it is not.
should be an eye opener!




The profit does not exist until I purchase something. If I would never purchase something, then the profit would never exist. So how can it be taken away? Thats not how buisness works though, the profit and the cost of the product is all lost if everyone decides not to pay for it and the company cannot recoup the costs of production and marketing, and thus will hike prices up in order to cover its losses. So the ethical issue means you end up taking money out of other consumers pockets, you know there is already money involved before you purchase anything and buy not paying for it and still ending up with a physical product you have stolen its value.


Is murder the same as theft? Is one more or less unethical?the two crimes are different in all natures, how is it reletive?


Do you not agree that it is more unethical to, physically or otherwise, deprive someone else of something they actually own, something that exists in the here and now, unlike profits which won't exist if I don't buy anything, than it is to make a copy of something? you are ending up with a physical product though with pirated products and you are depriving companies of something they actually own, the potential buisness profits exist before the product goes on the market, even before the product is in a physical form, its completely here and now and if you don't purchase the item and put the money back into the pot it comes from somewhere else. Maybe if you went a step further and plaigerised the idea it becomes a different issue, or if you snake the idea before they put it to fruition you might have a more plausible argument but as ethical as you want to get it comes back down to copyright theft and its an unavoidable part of it. Its a legal thing, i mean ethically everything should be free as no one can law claim truly to anything but that would just not work.


I would argue that theft is doubly wrong. Not only are you infringing on someone's property rights, but you're leaving them without something they had before.

you are depriving people of custom, which means you are depriving people of money, if money is not something you own we should all go rob a bank. what you steal is irrelevent its still stealing and thats the ethical point right there.

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 05:24 PM
If I would never purchase the product with or without the option of piracy, what potential profits are lost?

straightXed
11-02-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
If I would never purchase the product with or without the option of piracy, what potential profits are lost?

that makes no sense, if you don't buy it and don't steal/pirate it and have nothing at all at the end of it then theres no issue is there. they aim and market the product accordingly.

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 06:07 PM
Right, so if I'm not going to buy it and I don't pirate it, nothing is lost. Now, I'm still never going to buy it, as I wouldn't have anyway without the option of piracy, what is different?

I've illegally gained something, yes, but what is taken? What is lost?

straightXed
11-02-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Right, so if I'm not going to buy it and I don't pirate it, nothing is lost. Now, I'm still never going to buy it, as I wouldn't have anyway without the option of piracy, what is different?

I've illegally gained something, yes, but what is taken? What is lost?

like i said people aim at a market, companys account for mistargetting and loss due to miss marketing. You were part of their target audience, you decided to steal instead of pay thus you are aiding towards a larger contribution of unsold stock, if everyone was to not pay then the target audience would all have the product and the company would be without any of the money that is the products worth.

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 07:12 PM
But if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, why does pirating it make me part of the target audience when I wasn't before?

xsecx
11-02-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
But if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, why does pirating it make me part of the target audience when I wasn't before?

if you weren't going to buy it, then you also logically shouldn't be pirating it. are you trying to argue that this is what happens most of the time?

straightXed
11-02-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
But if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, why does pirating it make me part of the target audience when I wasn't before?

the target audience is the people that want that product, its aimed for you to buy not to steal. Why would you pirate things you don't want? If you pirate things you don't want or have any use for then you are just breaking the law for absoloutley no reason, now thats stupid isn't it?!

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
if you weren't going to buy it, then you also logically shouldn't be pirating it. are you trying to argue that this is what happens most of the time?

Nope, but I'm going to argue that that's all I do. I believe one should support the artists, so I buy the CD if I like the music and feel the artists are deserving enough to warrant it, whether or not I have a pirated copy.


Originally posted by straightXed
the target audience is the people that want that product, its aimed for you to buy not to steal. Why would you pirate things you don't want? If you pirate things you don't want or have any use for then you are just breaking the law for absoloutley no reason, now thats stupid isn't it?!

Okay, I am currently listening to the Eminem song "White America". I am not an Eminem fan. I downloaded that song because I was curious as to the controversy it seemed to cause, after I saw reference to it on GNN.

Not being in the target audience and not being a potential purchaser does not not equate to wanting to listen to one or more of the songs.

straightXed
11-02-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Nope, but I'm going to argue that that's all I do. I believe one should support the artists, so I buy the CD if I like the music and feel the artists are deserving enough to warrant it, whether or not I have a pirated copy.



Okay, I am currently listening to the Eminem song "White America". I am not an Eminem fan. I downloaded that song because I was curious as to the controversy it seemed to cause, after I saw reference to it on GNN.

Not being in the target audience and not being a potential purchaser does not not equate to wanting to listen to one or more of the songs.


you know i have bought albums because there was one song on there i wanted. you wanted it enough to steal it, you could have easily looked up the lyrics instead of downloading it, you obviously wanted to listen to the song. So you wouldn't buy the album if there was no way to pirate it, would you rent it? why should you get the song for free while others pay? whatever reason you wanted the song for is irrelevent, if a club dj downloads a load of songs he doesn't like to play at his club its stealing. You are obviously not the expected type of buyer but still you should be expected to buy it. If a father takes his kids to the cinema to see a film he has no interest in should he get in for free?

xJoeyNormalx
11-02-2004, 08:27 PM
Hold on, backtrack to where this discussion of what I would do started. The issue at hand is potential profit and whether or not they were lost.

If I couldn't download the song, I would've read the lyrics, listened to the radio in hope of hearing it, or perhaps gone to a CD store for a listen. Instead, I took the more convenient route of downloading it.

As with or without piracy, I would not have bought the CD, how are the profits lost?

straightXed
11-03-2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Hold on, backtrack to where this discussion of what I would do started. The issue at hand is potential profit and whether or not they were lost.

If I couldn't download the song, I would've read the lyrics, listened to the radio in hope of hearing it, or perhaps gone to a CD store for a listen. Instead, I took the more convenient route of downloading it.

As with or without piracy, I would not have bought the CD, how are the profits lost?


You never answered if you would rent it or not, and would you pay a small fee to download the track? You know you can do that right?

The product for whatever reason has appealed to you therefore you are a potential buyer, if you choose not to thats fine but you are saying that with the option of piracy at hand. Its just you saying you wouldn't buy it, who knows. How is downloading more conveinient than reading the lyrics?

It sounds like you are saying its ok to download stuff you wouldn't buy but still have a vested interest in. I mean its not alright for me to download a load of software that i wouldn't buy but a year down the road can't live with out. Its become more useful than it ever was intended by me and with and with that does that therefore incriminate me as its now something i would buy, hence software trials. If the company is not getting paid for it or giving it away free its theft. It becomes a game of acrediting a different value to things. Like i wouldn't pay £20 for that film when i can download it for nothing, then it becomes the fact that you stop buying dvd's alltogether because you decide you would never buy them if you can just download them. Its all relative to having the option of piracy. So what do you do when you get hooked on this eminem song, and play it everyday? Would you then go out and buy the album?

Do you think like this just to justify it to your god? So if you never would buy the item why should you own it, regardless of proffit?

what i don't understand is why you didn't just do this and keep with the law - http://search.launch.yahoo.com/search/lsearch/all?p=eminem+White+America

xsecx
11-03-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Hold on, backtrack to where this discussion of what I would do started. The issue at hand is potential profit and whether or not they were lost.

If I couldn't download the song, I would've read the lyrics, listened to the radio in hope of hearing it, or perhaps gone to a CD store for a listen. Instead, I took the more convenient route of downloading it.

As with or without piracy, I would not have bought the CD, how are the profits lost?

how is this relevant since the vast majority of people that use piracy use it to get products they would otherwise pay for? Why are you going to waste everyones time arguing the exception rather than the rule?

xdaddydaycorex
11-05-2004, 02:25 PM
picked up foreverafternothing / A18
does anyone know what isaacs' saying on the hidden last track?

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
how is this relevant since the vast majority of people that use piracy use it to get products they would otherwise pay for? Why are you going to waste everyones time arguing the exception rather than the rule?

I am not arguing that piracy is justified. I am arguing that piracy is not the same as stealing. If exceptions exist where nothing is actually taken away, then it is not alway stealing (profits are not always stolen).

As exceptions exist, piracy and stealing are different things.

xsecx
11-05-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
I am not arguing that piracy is justified. I am arguing that piracy is not the same as stealing. If exceptions exist where nothing is actually taken away, then it is not alway stealing (profits are not always stolen).

As exceptions exist, piracy and stealing are different things.

except that regardless of what your motives are, it's still legally viewed as a form of stealing, so it's still irrelevant.

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
You never answered if you would rent it or not, and would you pay a small fee to download the track? You know you can do that right?

Rent - Perhaps, if I could find it. The only places I know of in NZ that rent CDs are the public libraries, and their collections are generally atrocious.

Download legally - Not with no credit card (and I'm not actually certain if you can even do so in NZ).


Originally posted by straightXed
The product for whatever reason has appealed to you therefore you are a potential buyer, if you choose not to thats fine but you are saying that with the option of piracy at hand. Its just you saying you wouldn't buy it, who knows.

I am certain I would not buy it without the option of piracy. I can provide another example of this; downloading CDs that are out of print (especially old local releases), or those that are from small overseas labels where there is no NZ distro and I have no access to a credit card (eg old xMaroonx stuff, which I do intend to buy as soon as I get access to a credit card).


Originally posted by straightXed
How is downloading more conveinient than reading the lyrics?

It's not. I was refering when I said convenience to the other ways I could hear the song.

It does, however, give me a fuller picture of the meaning of the lyrics, as the tone of voice and so on can play a large role.


Originally posted by straightXed

It sounds like you are saying its ok to download stuff you wouldn't buy but still have a vested interest in. I mean its not alright for me to download a load of software that i wouldn't buy but a year down the road can't live with out.

No, I'm not saying it's okay. I am saying that nothing is stolen. As the profits do not and would not exist, they cannot be stolen. What do you suggest that I have taken away?


Originally posted by straightXed
Its become more useful than it ever was intended by me and with and with that does that therefore incriminate me as its now something i would buy, hence software trials. If the company is not getting paid for it or giving it away free its theft. It becomes a game of acrediting a different value to things. Like i wouldn't pay £20 for that film when i can download it for nothing, then it becomes the fact that you stop buying dvd's alltogether because you decide you would never buy them if you can just download them. Its all relative to having the option of piracy. So what do you do when you get hooked on this eminem song, and play it everyday? Would you then go out and buy the album?

No, as I do not wish to support Eminem or the major-label he is on. O'course, I somehow doubt that I ever would get hooked on his song.

In, however, the examples I provided earlier in this post, I would buy the CDs.


Originally posted by straightXed
Do you think like this just to justify it to your god? So if you never would buy the item why should you own it, regardless of proffit?

Here we come into the issue of justifying property rights. I cannot be nothered arguing that.

Although my own beliefs may differ, in this debate I am conceding that piracy is unethical where or not you would buy the product, as I am too lazy to argue otherwise. All I am trying to establish in this debate is that piracy and theft are different concepts.


Originally posted by straightXed
what i don't understand is why you didn't just do this and keep with the law - http://search.launch.yahoo.com/search/lsearch/all?p=eminem+White+America

Convenience, mostly. My internet connection is generally too primitive to allow me to stream audio, let alone video, so I stay away from sites like Launch most of the time.

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
except that regardless of what your motives are, it's still legally viewed as a form of stealing, so it's still irrelevant.

Are you asserting that the law makes all ethical debate irrelevant?

In case you forgot, Sec, I have conceded that legally they are the same, but ethically they are not.

EDIT: Actually, under NZ law, piracy is covered by statutes pertaining to breaches of copyright etc, not theft. It is seen as more akin to counterfeiting than theft. As I live in the NZ...it's not legally the same. Ho-hum.

straightXed
11-05-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Are you asserting that the law makes all ethical debate irrelevant?

In case you forgot, Sec, I have conceded that legally they are the same, but ethically they are not.

still fraudulent, cheating, swindling dishonest behaviour so how can you claim its ethical?

xsecx
11-05-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Are you asserting that the law makes all ethical debate irrelevant?

In case you forgot, Sec, I have conceded that legally they are the same, but ethically they are not.

Your ethics are irrelevant when you're charged with a crime, the crime is theft when you try and explain that you didn't steal anything. The state has already made the decision for you.

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
still fraudulent, cheating, swindling dishonest behaviour so how can you claim its ethical?

I never did so. Please read my post. I claimed that it was less unethical than theft.

Oh, and as I fully admit to doing so, and make no claims otherwise...how is it fraudulent or dishonest?

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
Your ethics are irrelevant when you're charged with a crime, the crime is theft when you try and explain that you didn't steal anything. The state has already made the decision for you.

So? The state, you know, is capable of being wrong. I would have thought a Kerry voter would appreciate it.

Please also see the the edit I made to my previous post. NZ law, strangely enough, is not the same as US law.

straightXed
11-05-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
I never did so. Please read my post. I claimed that it was less unethical than theft.

Oh, and as I fully admit to doing so, and make no claims otherwise...how is it fraudulent or dishonest?

you are ridiculous.

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
you are ridiculous.

Ah, insults, the best way to win an argument!

straightXed
11-05-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Ah, insults, the best way to win an argument!

i'm not goiing to entertain your ridiculous questions, if you can't figure it out then you really aren't trying. I'm sorry how your behaviour comes off to others is insulting to you but its really your problem.

xJoeyNormalx
11-05-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
I can't refute your arguments, so I'm going to run off crying.

Well okay then.

straightXed
11-05-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Well okay then.

you really think i'm crying and unable to refute your arguments, then you go on thinking that. It matters not to me, even if you have now decided to try and bait me by making false quotes, whatever makes your little world more comfortable for you to live in.

xsecx
11-05-2004, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
So? The state, you know, is capable of being wrong. I would have thought a Kerry voter would appreciate it.

Please also see the the edit I made to my previous post. NZ law, strangely enough, is not the same as US law.

welcome to the real world joey, a place where your opinion won't stop you from getting either arrested or sued depending on where you live.

Kickafterpunch
11-06-2004, 03:30 AM
Sorry, i know this is you two's argument and all, and i do suck at debating and i dont even care about the topic i just want to say....Sec you are an asshole. The guy is being nice.

Sec there is a difference in Arguing your point and Pressing your point on other people, now what Joey is doing is Stating his opinion to inform, your are being an ass hole and trying to persuade.

Joey, keep up the good work.

xsecx
11-06-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Kickafterpunch
Sorry, i know this is you two's argument and all, and i do suck at debating and i dont even care about the topic i just want to say....Sec you are an asshole. The guy is being nice.

Sec there is a difference in Arguing your point and Pressing your point on other people, now what Joey is doing is Stating his opinion to inform, your are being an ass hole and trying to persuade.

Joey, keep up the good work.

In reality some opinions are meaningful and useful and some aren't. But thank you for trying to tell me the difference between things. Like your opnion of me and this situation isn't meaningful nor does it matter, but thanks for trying!

xJoeyNormalx
11-06-2004, 06:39 PM
Cheers Kickafterpunch.


Originally posted by xsecx
welcome to the real world joey, a place where your opinion won't stop you from getting either arrested or sued depending on where you live.

If I ever am sued or arrested, then this comment may become relevant. I sincerly doubt I will be, if for the simple practical reason that my legit CD collection should indicate to any record company that I am more use to them as a customer not a prisoner....

None of this, of course, counters or addresses the point that piracy and stealing aren't ethically (or, in some places, legally) the same.

xsecx
11-06-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by xJoeyNormalx
Cheers Kickafterpunch.



If I ever am sued or arrested, then this comment may become relevant. I sincerly doubt I will be, if for the simple practical reason that my legit CD collection should indicate to any record company that I am more use to them as a customer not a prisoner....

None of this, of course, counters or addresses the point that piracy and stealing aren't ethically (or, in some places, legally) the same.

yeah, because they'll check your collection before arresting you or filing suit and then drop the case all together because they'll be awe of your purchasing power.

the point is that it's a meaningless conversation. Points have been made by ed and myself that that piracy is a form of stealing that you refuse to accept, while legal minds have brought suits and will continue to do so and arrests will continue and increase. Whether you think it's stealing or not is irrelevant, you're subjected to laws, you don't write them.