God - Not this question AGAIN!
- Thread starter Grant64
- Start date
- Status
blizz
New member
RatTrap said:lol renegade.. jaz told me the story actually.. and that was really just like Jaz told me.. except for one thing.. the sales person was a guy actually..
just to point out Jaz made it explicitly clear he was going to spend this weekend "fucking like an animal" if that really means beastiality... well I'll leave that for you guys to decide
crhylove
Banned
Stop being so selfish...
bah... selfishness is not ethically making determinations about how you spend your $....
selfishness would be stealing for no other reason than your own satisfaction.
hypocrite? stalkid, quit trying to flame me because i schooled you like a little girl in some other thread. it's embarassing for me to have to respond, on the off chance that somebody sees this, and didn't see that.
and gorxon, this pay for windows bit has got to quit. Even you are admiting the vile nature of said company, and yet you recommend that i send them my money. that's just ludicrous. that's like saying, yes, bush was a callous murderer while governor of texas, but vote for him anyway!
i just don't get it. How on earth will me sending ~$300 to some corporation that has more cash in reserve than ANY OTHER corporation that I've ever heard of going to help them stop exploiting the industry/users/competitors/politicians/employees, and anyone else who it may benefit them to exploit?
that's just nonsense.
rhy
bah... selfishness is not ethically making determinations about how you spend your $....
selfishness would be stealing for no other reason than your own satisfaction.
hypocrite? stalkid, quit trying to flame me because i schooled you like a little girl in some other thread. it's embarassing for me to have to respond, on the off chance that somebody sees this, and didn't see that.
and gorxon, this pay for windows bit has got to quit. Even you are admiting the vile nature of said company, and yet you recommend that i send them my money. that's just ludicrous. that's like saying, yes, bush was a callous murderer while governor of texas, but vote for him anyway!
i just don't get it. How on earth will me sending ~$300 to some corporation that has more cash in reserve than ANY OTHER corporation that I've ever heard of going to help them stop exploiting the industry/users/competitors/politicians/employees, and anyone else who it may benefit them to exploit?
that's just nonsense.
rhy
RatTrap
GODLIKE
crhylove said:
i'm not gonna bother discussing this with you.. but know that your views lose respect in my eyes..
also your way of trying to stay subtle yet not being it tends to get old.. you can try to be as polished as you like.. i won't buy it.. simply because of your atitude.. you can yell "wolf" only so many times.. so next time.. i might just not bother to take you seriously.. if it's a personal matter i don't know.. but all the ppl with your type of view/mentality just make me sick.. i could go on with examples about how wrong you are.. but it just won't work.. because you LOVE to disagree.. i'm starting to believe you disagree because you want to.. and well.. i've met others like that on here and i just don't have the time for it.. so.. unf.. meh.. whatever
..EOF..
Jaz
Ex-Mod
blizz said:just to point out Jaz made it explicitly clear he was going to spend this weekend "fucking like an animal" if that really means beastiality... well I'll leave that for you guys to decide
Well I am back from my weekend, where I did indeed, fuck like an animal. However, call my girlfriend an animal again dude and I'll have to kill you.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
hmm....you know, I'm pro capitalist all the way, and although my copy of windows is technicaly legit, I can't say I can complain about people pirating windows, in fact I would have told dell to not include windows with my laptop if I had the choice. Its been legaly declared that microsoft has a monopoly with their operating system. In other words, whats the alternative? and why should you have to pay the microsoft tax for using a computer? Sure we have linux, its a good contender, but microsoft has (and I stress) blatently made anticompetitive actions to break compatibility with linux's interoperability so many times that its not even funny. And btw, it has been proven that piracy does benefit microsoft in a way, because those who wouldn't otherwise buy the OS still stick to microsofts proprietary standards, which keeps their percentage of the market so high. (no im not using that to justify piracy either)
And rattrap... I know your pro palladium and all... which is fine... I can respect that... but some of us would rather not have the entire industry controlled by just one company... (yeah I know there is more than one company involved... but even if microsoft aren't the only ones that sign software... that just turns it from a monopoly into an oligopoly... which is equaly as bad...)
awww... come on... why does the teapot... like to call the kettle black?... :happy:....
And rattrap... I know your pro palladium and all... which is fine... I can respect that... but some of us would rather not have the entire industry controlled by just one company... (yeah I know there is more than one company involved... but even if microsoft aren't the only ones that sign software... that just turns it from a monopoly into an oligopoly... which is equaly as bad...)
RatTrap said:i could go on with examples about how wrong you are.. but it just won't work.. because you LOVE to disagree.. i'm starting to believe you disagree because you want to.. and well.. i've met others like that on here and i just don't have the time for it.. so.. unf.. meh.. whatever
EOF.. [/B]
awww... come on... why does the teapot... like to call the kettle black?... :happy:....
Last edited:
crhylove
Banned
i can't believe i'm in a debate where in alphawolf is the moderate... LMAO.
guess that makes me a full on radical, but that has been the case with many people who put ethics above convenience/status quo.
not that gandhi, jesus, ben franklin or any of those people were particularly cool in any way.
just thought i'd set a little precedent (sp?) regarding throwing over the DRM tables (including PAYladium) wherein i consider technology a holy area where commerce should be put behind the overall benefits to humanity.
i suppose it's also ok for corporations to charge exorbanant amounts of money for their patented medicines to diseased people in 3rd world countries too? oh, and what about genetically engineered corn cross pollinating with native breeds (rice too), and hence making a farmers homegrown (but genetically altered through no means of his own) crops illegal for him to sell? therefore costing food buyers more, and/or putting the farmer out of business?
intellectual property rights NEVER have a good side, even in an industry as arbitrary and non-essential as the arts.
the sooner we collectively quit being selfish with the realm of the possible as some kind of egocentric "patent" or "intellectual property" thing, the sooner humanity can loose some of it's animal primate programming.
advancing technology, society, industry, and ultimately conscience shouldn't be some kind of monetary pissing contest.
however this doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't get paid, they should, but extending this payment to infiniti based on IP laws is just hiddeously destructive.
rhy
guess that makes me a full on radical, but that has been the case with many people who put ethics above convenience/status quo.
not that gandhi, jesus, ben franklin or any of those people were particularly cool in any way.
just thought i'd set a little precedent (sp?) regarding throwing over the DRM tables (including PAYladium) wherein i consider technology a holy area where commerce should be put behind the overall benefits to humanity.
i suppose it's also ok for corporations to charge exorbanant amounts of money for their patented medicines to diseased people in 3rd world countries too? oh, and what about genetically engineered corn cross pollinating with native breeds (rice too), and hence making a farmers homegrown (but genetically altered through no means of his own) crops illegal for him to sell? therefore costing food buyers more, and/or putting the farmer out of business?
intellectual property rights NEVER have a good side, even in an industry as arbitrary and non-essential as the arts.
the sooner we collectively quit being selfish with the realm of the possible as some kind of egocentric "patent" or "intellectual property" thing, the sooner humanity can loose some of it's animal primate programming.
advancing technology, society, industry, and ultimately conscience shouldn't be some kind of monetary pissing contest.
however this doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't get paid, they should, but extending this payment to infiniti based on IP laws is just hiddeously destructive.
rhy
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
The main problem your looking at with this is that corporate entities have all of the same rights and priveliges as a human being. I think there should be a legislative change to that to balance the playing field between the big and the small:
I think they should cap corporate created (not owned) copyrights to last only 25 years, and corporate created patents to last 5 years at MOST.
Private individual created copyrights should be for 75 years or until the person who owns it dies, whichever comes last. Private individual created patents should last between 5 and 20 years, depending on the patent.
If a private individual sells rights to anybody (corporate or not), it should be unlawful for that entity to bind them to a contract giving them those rights for a period of longer than 10 years. In other words, after 10 years, reguardless of what contract was signed, the full rights of that copyright/patent go back to the creator, who can then keep it to him/herself, renew another 10 year contract, or license it to another company as he/she so desires.
There should also be a cap on the maximum number of patents that a person or corporate entity can own.
I think they should cap corporate created (not owned) copyrights to last only 25 years, and corporate created patents to last 5 years at MOST.
Private individual created copyrights should be for 75 years or until the person who owns it dies, whichever comes last. Private individual created patents should last between 5 and 20 years, depending on the patent.
If a private individual sells rights to anybody (corporate or not), it should be unlawful for that entity to bind them to a contract giving them those rights for a period of longer than 10 years. In other words, after 10 years, reguardless of what contract was signed, the full rights of that copyright/patent go back to the creator, who can then keep it to him/herself, renew another 10 year contract, or license it to another company as he/she so desires.
There should also be a cap on the maximum number of patents that a person or corporate entity can own.
crhylove
Banned
why not 5 years across the board?
i don't c how anyone couldn't make enough money during that time, to justify the time spent innovating or whatever they are trying to claim entitlement for.
in fact, i'd say that all software should be open sourced after approx 5 years, too, based on the Id model. This is one of the reasons i *DO* buy id products.
rhy
i don't c how anyone couldn't make enough money during that time, to justify the time spent innovating or whatever they are trying to claim entitlement for.
in fact, i'd say that all software should be open sourced after approx 5 years, too, based on the Id model. This is one of the reasons i *DO* buy id products.
rhy
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
well, when I refer to copyrights, I am generaly talking about things like artwork. In example, ID has released the code source for doom a long time ago, however, they haven't released the rights to the name "doom" as a video game.
code I sorta consider a non issue, I bet in the next decade, all software will end up being open source to anybody that wants access to it anyways. The reason behind my thinking is that there are only so many tasks that you could want automated based on the technology available at the time of its creation. E.G, there will only be so many FTP clients, so many desktop shells, so many game engines, etc, that sooner or later, the closed source ones wont be going anywhere because nobody has any need for them, as the open source ones tend to progress much faster than their closed source counterparts, until the closed source ones become obsolete. That said, long before the quake2 source code was released for example, there were already better open source 3d game engines, namely cube3d as an example. (and at this time, commercialy sold games would be based on how good the game artwork/play/fun actualy is, instead of the technology behind the game, because of course, they arent selling the code, only the story and the content of the game, or what have you. we also wouldn't see anymore crap like quake3 which was realy just a concept game, whose engine was to be used in better games.)
But (code aside, we are just talking about artwork here now) you want copyrights to be long enough to where theres a reason for somebody to want to create that copyright. Private individuals should have them last their entire lifetime, because its realy their art, they should be allowed to do what they want with it, and when they die it simply becomes public domain (or goes to their family members until 75 years after its creation, should they die before that timeframe). Corporate entities however, are different. Corporate entities are owned by multiple people, and their shares are for trade on the public market. Their copyrights, if you will, lack the "sovereignty" (for lack of a better term) that non corporate copyrights have, because while these copyrights were being created, they werent necessarily owned by the same people as when they were finnished.
/me tries to emphasize what hes saying here
Say for example, some employees work for a company and help create a video game, then all of them leave the company after x years. Now virtualy nobody who actualy did the work on that project actualy even works there anymore, yet the people who are in that company now own that copyright, even though they did nothing to create it.
heres my reasoning for the durations:
75 years works for individuals because its the average lifespan of the person.
25 years works for comanies because its the typical duration that a lifer would work for a company before retirement, so by this time, most people who took part in creating this copyright have left the company, hence the property of this publicly owned company goes to the public domain.
EDIT: Actualy heres a better idea, I know all of you will love this too - the companies copyright lasts only as long as their current layoff rate. Meaning, if employees are fired or laid off a lot due to corporate downsizing, like some CEO trying to save an extra buck, the company loses out because their copyrights will expire sooner! Only fat cats would hate a law like that, because now they actualy have to think before getting rid of people.
code I sorta consider a non issue, I bet in the next decade, all software will end up being open source to anybody that wants access to it anyways. The reason behind my thinking is that there are only so many tasks that you could want automated based on the technology available at the time of its creation. E.G, there will only be so many FTP clients, so many desktop shells, so many game engines, etc, that sooner or later, the closed source ones wont be going anywhere because nobody has any need for them, as the open source ones tend to progress much faster than their closed source counterparts, until the closed source ones become obsolete. That said, long before the quake2 source code was released for example, there were already better open source 3d game engines, namely cube3d as an example. (and at this time, commercialy sold games would be based on how good the game artwork/play/fun actualy is, instead of the technology behind the game, because of course, they arent selling the code, only the story and the content of the game, or what have you. we also wouldn't see anymore crap like quake3 which was realy just a concept game, whose engine was to be used in better games.)
But (code aside, we are just talking about artwork here now) you want copyrights to be long enough to where theres a reason for somebody to want to create that copyright. Private individuals should have them last their entire lifetime, because its realy their art, they should be allowed to do what they want with it, and when they die it simply becomes public domain (or goes to their family members until 75 years after its creation, should they die before that timeframe). Corporate entities however, are different. Corporate entities are owned by multiple people, and their shares are for trade on the public market. Their copyrights, if you will, lack the "sovereignty" (for lack of a better term) that non corporate copyrights have, because while these copyrights were being created, they werent necessarily owned by the same people as when they were finnished.
/me tries to emphasize what hes saying here
Say for example, some employees work for a company and help create a video game, then all of them leave the company after x years. Now virtualy nobody who actualy did the work on that project actualy even works there anymore, yet the people who are in that company now own that copyright, even though they did nothing to create it.
heres my reasoning for the durations:
75 years works for individuals because its the average lifespan of the person.
25 years works for comanies because its the typical duration that a lifer would work for a company before retirement, so by this time, most people who took part in creating this copyright have left the company, hence the property of this publicly owned company goes to the public domain.
EDIT: Actualy heres a better idea, I know all of you will love this too - the companies copyright lasts only as long as their current layoff rate. Meaning, if employees are fired or laid off a lot due to corporate downsizing, like some CEO trying to save an extra buck, the company loses out because their copyrights will expire sooner! Only fat cats would hate a law like that, because now they actualy have to think before getting rid of people.
Last edited:
RatTrap
GODLIKE
your just making more trouble then solutions that way.. or at least a whole lot more trouble then things would be worth.. think it thru.. imagine all the law-issues and company wars that could start that way.. it would change the ekonomi so much that it would be very dificult for any company to stay up long.. things would require more money and yet again.. the ones with most money would survive.. and even more so with all the law-suits etc..
also.. "(no im not using that to justify piracy either)" i could simply respond.. yes you are.. and i'm 100% sure you'll try to deny that.. but it's simple and easy.. you are!.. nothing else to it..
piracy when it comes to MS.. sure.. go ahead.. if it makes you feel better go ahead.. but don't blame microsoft for having so much money that you feel it don't matter.. because it does.. it's just like stealing something from a rich person.. you might feel it personally less because that bastard has so much allready.. and you would'nt steal from a money begger.. coz the poor thing is on the street.. but it's equally wrong.. only the last example is just plain sickening..
the thing you seem to forget is.. you guys are generalysing.. crhy will most probably keep pirating for the rest of his life.. from small aswell as from big companies.. and so will most of the internet.. most bigger companies won't feel a thing while smaller companies will have with time a lower income and budget will not make the company hold it's current state.. it's not that simple but if you need a real economical biz model go find one.. there's plenty out there on the net.. most are bad though..
the internet is based on one thing.. losing money.. this is of course for soft and hard ware companies.. budgets are set on building companies and putting up websites and actually LOSING money.. wow huh?.. so most of the websites you see out there from companies are being payed with money you buy their soft/hard- ware for.. and so.. you can easally see if a company is doing bad.. generally it'll have old news.. and or bad design or look like it's been donne fast (ex: Rare pre-MS buy, old site had no news on their upcomming events, yet back when they had money they had news/anouncements more often then the NOA site. Also, after they where bought, a website was made fast. You can tell this pretty easy.. just using the site abit you'll notice it was just a fast thing to acomodate the change).. Sega went thru the same thing.. and so have many others.. i'm using game companies so you'll understand and see it better.. i could just as well go with food companies that have gonne down.. same thing.. magazines.. and alot of smaller software company websites..
also.. "(no im not using that to justify piracy either)" i could simply respond.. yes you are
.. and i'm 100% sure you'll try to deny that.. but it's simple and easy.. you are!.. nothing else to it..piracy when it comes to MS.. sure.. go ahead.. if it makes you feel better go ahead.. but don't blame microsoft for having so much money that you feel it don't matter.. because it does.. it's just like stealing something from a rich person.. you might feel it personally less because that bastard has so much allready.. and you would'nt steal from a money begger.. coz the poor thing is on the street.. but it's equally wrong.. only the last example is just plain sickening..
the thing you seem to forget is.. you guys are generalysing.. crhy will most probably keep pirating for the rest of his life.. from small aswell as from big companies.. and so will most of the internet.. most bigger companies won't feel a thing while smaller companies will have with time a lower income and budget will not make the company hold it's current state.. it's not that simple but if you need a real economical biz model go find one.. there's plenty out there on the net.. most are bad though..
the internet is based on one thing.. losing money.. this is of course for soft and hard ware companies.. budgets are set on building companies and putting up websites and actually LOSING money.. wow huh?.. so most of the websites you see out there from companies are being payed with money you buy their soft/hard- ware for.. and so.. you can easally see if a company is doing bad.. generally it'll have old news.. and or bad design or look like it's been donne fast (ex: Rare pre-MS buy, old site had no news on their upcomming events, yet back when they had money they had news/anouncements more often then the NOA site. Also, after they where bought, a website was made fast. You can tell this pretty easy.. just using the site abit you'll notice it was just a fast thing to acomodate the change).. Sega went thru the same thing.. and so have many others.. i'm using game companies so you'll understand and see it better.. i could just as well go with food companies that have gonne down.. same thing.. magazines.. and alot of smaller software company websites..
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
RatTrap said:
of course it would change the economy, thats the point, and trust me, companies will last, theres such a thing as planning ahead. And, not to mention, a company could offer somebody a sum of money in exchange for their quitting the company, hint hint. Besides, company wars are a good thing, unless you just want one company to run the entire economy? well, if so just keep hoping for a palladium future. This plan would mainly force most CEOs to cut their own paychecks if you ask me.
also.. "(no im not using that to justify piracy either)" i could simply respond.. yes you are
Well, I originaly said, to wit: "And btw, it has been proven that piracy does benefit microsoft in a way, because those who wouldn't otherwise buy the OS still stick to microsofts proprietary standards, which keeps their percentage of the market so high." which I would never justify because, if you hate a proprietary standard, you should stay away from it anyways. All of the other reasons of course, yes, I could justify piracy.
no argument here, because I don't think the rich need simpathy. (I suppose thats required when arguing with you? otherwise I just exclude this)
If you ask me, IMO the IT industry isn't ever going to be as profitable in the future as it is now for huge reasons not even relating to piracy (as it stands, its on a downward curve, and will continue that way for a while). (again something I would otherwise exclude)
I am not sure what your getting at here. If by putting a website on the internet, a company loses money and doesn't regain any of it back, at all, then why would they do it? That just doesn't make any sense. Usualy websites these days bring a good return in terms of investments, and consumer interest. These two things are whats keeping the internet alive, and will continue to keep it alive in the future. Why is this? well, even though some people like to block banners, popups, etc, theres still the "word of mouth" that you need to factor in there, which simply putting up a website satisfies, because quite honestly, a website is the #1 method of acquiring information about anything these days, including a product thats sold on the commercial market.
Last edited:
crhylove
Banned
*yawn* Rattrap obviously has a vested interest in something relating to IP, what i don't know and couldn't say, nor could i care particularly because i agree with alphawolf that most concepts will have a superior open source derivative within the next 5-6 years.
so all of this is moot in alot of ways.
but that doesn't change the ethical relations that matter the most to me, however clearly these are going to matter less.....
"stealing is stealing".... well maybe, but i think stealing from hitler (or bush/cheney) is a damn good thing. but whatever.....
rhy
so all of this is moot in alot of ways.
but that doesn't change the ethical relations that matter the most to me, however clearly these are going to matter less.....
"stealing is stealing".... well maybe, but i think stealing from hitler (or bush/cheney) is a damn good thing. but whatever.....
rhy
RatTrap
GODLIKE
simply put.. you can be better than someone else.. and show them the right way of doing things.. or.. you can just get back with the same coin..
i wonder what the mature way is.. the civilized way is.. the human way is.. if you lack compation for the rich i don't care less.. if you feel someone is a bastard so you have to steal from him.. same thing.. you can't justify unlegal acts with "i don't like him".. that's just a grown up way of being a mammas boy..
if you wan't to change the economy go ahead.. i find your idea kind of silly.. but hey.. that's me.. i may have alot of experiance with economics.. dunno how much you have.. but maybe that don't matter.. maybe you can come up a new and better way for companies to spread around their money and run their busyness.. there's allways new ideas.. and there's allways new improvement.. but the thing your lacking in.. is you aren't looking at the downsides.. so eather your blind.. or you just are to content with your own idea to see it..
anyways.. i'm not gonna argue more with you guys because i just don't have the time for it.. if you don't believe me check out web-corner.. new anouncement comming up..
i wonder what the mature way is.. the civilized way is.. the human way is.. if you lack compation for the rich i don't care less.. if you feel someone is a bastard so you have to steal from him.. same thing.. you can't justify unlegal acts with "i don't like him".. that's just a grown up way of being a mammas boy..
if you wan't to change the economy go ahead.. i find your idea kind of silly.. but hey.. that's me.. i may have alot of experiance with economics.. dunno how much you have.. but maybe that don't matter.. maybe you can come up a new and better way for companies to spread around their money and run their busyness.. there's allways new ideas.. and there's allways new improvement.. but the thing your lacking in.. is you aren't looking at the downsides.. so eather your blind.. or you just are to content with your own idea to see it..
anyways.. i'm not gonna argue more with you guys because i just don't have the time for it.. if you don't believe me check out web-corner.. new anouncement comming up..
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
RatTrap said:
I am lost with this...give me an example of who you would show the right way of doing things?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for somebody being rich, but I don't think you need to feel sorry for someone not being able to give themselves a 3 million dollar a year raise over their current 20 million dollar a year salary.
Of course, I haven't looked at the downsides, I thought that up in a matter of minutes in all honesty, its not like im a dictator saying heres what we will do. The fact remains that there is a growing concern over corporations "ruining" humanity, if you will, so a change is imminent, whether you want to believe it or not. If any radical changes like this get passed, there will be tons of research done to see whether or not its a good plan, then the plan will be modified based on that research. Thats what bureaucrats are for.
again, the teapot shouldn't call the kettle black.
EDIT: See, heres the kind of dammage that new laws like this would seek to prevent:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/10/23/197234.shtml?tid=155
which is another factor thats ruining your precious IT industry.
Last edited:
- Status