Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › David
@General Lighting 379856 wrote:
Ironically whilst the Chinese internet is heavily censored and monitoried, the govt and feds there don’t bother one bit with locking down MP3 or media downloads of pop music, they use this to devalue the music industry so it is less powerful than manufacturing or office / IT work.. this is commonplace across all hi tech Asian nations and is why the “you want DVD?” dude is usually South Chinese or SE Asian.. :laugh_at:
ah yes, Chinas affectionate nickname as the counter-fitting capital of the world. Just dont buy the electrical items if you dont like spikey hair ay
Try this site out and see what party matches you! 😉
@Iacchus 379859 wrote:
i would compromise in practice by saying the original producer of art has the right to profit from it and nobody else does
So you wouldnt get counterfiet DVDs and russian websites selling mp3s for 50p, but if I put an mp3 on my mates iPod I’m not committing a crime
I agree as long as u payed for the original mp3, DRM should not be allowed. Weather he should be able to keep the track long term though morally I dont know.
No, the price exists because people will pay it, it they wont, they wont buy it, so they cannot sell it, so its not worth it.
since you have not provided any information counter to my argument I cannot comment further
Counter-fitting will always happen due to the development cost of drugs. I think drugs company’s could be made to have cheaper prices in developing countries but at the end of the day they are the ones inventing them and they wouldn’t do so if it wasn’t for the massive profits.
Yes but like I said the medical research part of drugs manufacture would be non-profit and run by the government in my ideal world. The drug companies would be responsible for producing the medicines and companies such as cancer research UK and others would be responsible for developing the medicines. Drugs would be cheaper meaning more money in the pocket of the people, and that money would be recovered by the government through taxes to pay for the drugs reserach. And like I said with this arrangement the burden of the drugs reserach doesnt fall only on the poeple unluckly enough to get the illness.
I dont think people will always buy these things in enough numbers, or at least thats a possibility. Everything is going digital, wont be long before DVD’s will be an outdated concept and everything will be streamed or downloaded.
Maybe but people will want the official download in their official media library with all the extras associated with it and not just a badly encoded AVI file. People like buying and owning things for the most part, nothing will change that.
but there are a lot of people who dont get super rich that’s my point, its a tiny number who have the masses of wealth. A lot of artists do not have this and to take away a further revenue stream would make the situation even worse (or it could do anyway).
But these artists like I said will have a day job and create art for the joy of creating, not to line their pockets. You might increase the number of artists with day jobs (ie the peopel who would otherwise only just afford to survive without a day job) but thats a small price to pay for the liberty of everyone else to share information.
Still dont see what why because it cant be expressed in binary it suddenly has no value.
It should never have had a value. The fact it is expressible in binary just proves the point because I could say it to my mate with my mouth and he could write it down with a pen. That flow of information should not be restricted by the government
but you didn’t say some artists you said people should not be alowd to do X not some can some cannot.
I’m not trying to restrict what artists can do I’m trying to stop record labels profiting by enforcing the concept of copyright of art on the population
because if you stopped them being able to steal it they might well pay for it.
but you cannot stop people sharing information. If you really clamped down on downloading people would just start encrypting data or at the very least sharing analogue copies of the music
because no one invented DNA, no one owns it in the sense we all have it. its not the same as creating art and stating it has no value reproduction wise.
But people who genetically modify crops DID invent the DNA sequence they try to patent. It didnt exist in nature, they created it by modifying a sequence of base pairs into a sequence that did not exist naturally.
You could say that the fundamental format (ie DNA) was not invented so arrangements of it should not be patented. but all information is expressible as binary and nobody owns binary. Even if they did you could just find a different format to store the information and then share it.
To quote a friend who is better with words than me:
‘Ownership of something implies the possibility of exclusion by transference. That is, one of the fundamental properties of ownership is when ownership changes, the old owner becomes excluded.
Information has no such intrinsic property. If I transfer a piece of information to you (by whatever means of direct or indirect communication), I am still a holder of that information.’
@Iacchus 379865 wrote:
No, the price exists because people will pay it, it they wont, they wont buy it, so they cannot sell it, so its not worth it.
since you have not provided any information counter to my argument I cannot comment further
Whereas your points of view are properly referenced and backed up by only the latest peer reviews lol We having a conversation not writing a dissertation, by your logic you have just countered your own arguments too…
Counter-fitting will always happen due to the development cost of drugs. I think drugs company’s could be made to have cheaper prices in developing countries but at the end of the day they are the ones inventing them and they wouldn’t do so if it wasn’t for the massive profits.
Yes but like I said the medical research part of drugs manufacture would be non-profit and run by the government in my ideal world. The drug companies would be responsible for producing the medicines and companies such as cancer research UK and others would be responsible for developing the medicines. Drugs would be cheaper meaning more money in the pocket of the people, and that money would be recovered by the government through taxes to pay for the drugs reserach. And like I said with this arrangement the burden of the drugs reserach doesnt fall only on the poeple unluckly enough to get the illness.
If it could work it could be good but I think less drugs will be developed due to lack of profit so more people will suffer long term even though it seems nicer in the short term.
I dont think people will always buy these things in enough numbers, or at least thats a possibility. Everything is going digital, wont be long before DVD’s will be an outdated concept and everything will be streamed or downloaded.
Maybe but people will want the official download in their official media library with all the extras associated with it and not just a badly encoded AVI file. People like buying and owning things for the most part, nothing will change that.
Physical media may not totally go, but the profits from it will never be akin to the mass DVD market before digital downloading was pratical.
but there are a lot of people who dont get super rich that’s my point, its a tiny number who have the masses of wealth. A lot of artists do not have this and to take away a further revenue stream would make the situation even worse (or it could do anyway).
But these artists like I said will have a day job and create art for the joy of creating, not to line their pockets. You might increase the number of artists with day jobs (ie the peopel who would otherwise only just afford to survive without a day job) but thats a small price to pay for the liberty of everyone else to share information.
How do you know they wouldn’t like to devote their time to art full time? money allows this to happen, I dont agree with all this “for the people” crap sorry. You think Lou Reed’s (e.g.) work would have been so amazing if instead of devoting his life to it he worked in Tesco’s 9-5?
Still dont see what why because it cant be expressed in binary it suddenly has no value.
It should never have had a value. The fact it is expressible in binary just proves the point because I could say it to my mate with my mouth and he could write it down with a pen. That flow of information should not be restricted by the government
It doesn’t prove anything…By saying you cannot sell information people wont invest money in it to create it in the first place, so there wont be anything to restrict. Yeah that sounds like freedom (!) Wouldn’t it be great to have access to all films for free, of course they will look like shaky student camera work and like the director does The One Show in the week but hey it will be free.
but you didn’t say some artists you said people should not be alowd to do X not some can some cannot.
I’m not trying to restrict what artists can do I’m trying to stop record labels profiting by enforcing the concept of copyright of art on the population
but your saying people should not be able to sell information, you cannot just hide behind the word “record label”, this wont just effect some faceless company. It will effect the artists themselves, big and small.
because if you stopped them being able to steal it they might well pay for it.[/COLOR]
but you cannot stop people sharing information. If you really clamped down on downloading people would just start encrypting data or at the very least sharing analogue copies of the music
you can stop people sharing information, the digital rights bill is going just that. Some will get round it with VPN’s (and thus encrpytion) etc but the majority probably wont take the risk/understand how. Its about the masses not the individuals.
because no one invented DNA, no one owns it in the sense we all have it. its not the same as creating art and stating it has no value reproduction wise.
But people who genetically modify crops DID invent the DNA sequence they try to patent. It didnt exist in nature, they created it by modifying a sequence of base pairs into a sequence that did not exist naturally.
well in the specific case of GM crops they are inventing something so perhaps that should be copyrighted (I dont know though, that is a whole new complex argument) I was talking about people trying to copyright human DNA genomes (I think thats the right term, they were debating it on radio 4 yesterday).
You could say that the fundamental format (ie DNA) was not invented so arrangements of it should not be patented. but all information is expressible as binary and nobody owns binary. Even if they did you could just find a different format to store the information and then share it.
Exactly, so the format should not dictate weather it has value or anything else, its just a method of storing the information effectively.
@Iacchus 379866 wrote:
To quote a friend who is better with words than me:
‘Ownership of something implies the possibility of exclusion by transference. That is, one of the fundamental properties of ownership is when ownership changes, the old owner becomes excluded.
Information has no such intrinsic property. If I transfer a piece of information to you (by whatever means of direct or indirect communication), I am still a holder of that information.’
and you have to own something for it to have a value do you? no, so unless I am mistaken, that quote doesn’t contradict anything I have said…
buying music is more akin to buying a licence to play it and possibly do what you wish with it (tricky area that, DRM etc) but you cant just say u dont own it so it has no value.
Anyway, we have very very different view points, without going into real referenced research and stupid amounts of detail, this has to end soon :weee:
Information does have value but not monetary value, because I could copy a song a billion times and not be any richer. As for the DNA thing like I said patents of GM crops is really dangerous because you can unleash GM pollen on the world and then confiscate andy crops that are fertilised by them. Biotech companies could dominate the farmining industry with this concept.
Anyway I was about to say, it’s been a pleasure but I really have to get on with some work 😛
I dont think anything I can say will convince you information is not a commodity and vice versa and we’ve probably covered all the ground there is to cover so lets just agree to differ 🙂
I know we’re supposed to be done but some food for thought if you’re interested:
Controlling or restricting access to information is analogous to building walls around your property and locking the door. While it may be illegal to obtain unauthorised entry, this does not in itself constitute theft. By walking into your front door, I don’t suddenly own everything in your house. Likewise with information!
You can’t confiscate information.
Information is a limitless resource.
Information is an abstract representation of something concrete or abstract.
Information is that which is represented, not the medium upon which the representation exists.
The mere act of accessing information expands the set of “owners” to include the accessor.
None of these things are logical or workable in the context of asserting ownership. Your best bet for arguing that artwork should be copyright would be to argue that art is more than just information.
@General Lighting 379856 wrote:
the “you want DVD?” dude
:laugh_at:
@Iacchus 379870 wrote:
I know we’re supposed to be done but some food for thought if you’re interested:
Controlling or restricting access to information is analogous to building walls around your property and locking the door. While it may be illegal to obtain unauthorised entry, this does not in itself constitute theft. By walking into your front door, I don’t suddenly own everything in your house. Likewise with information!
You can’t confiscate information.
Information is a limitless resource.
Information is an abstract representation of something concrete or abstract.
Information is that which is represented, not the medium upon which the representation exists.
The mere act of accessing information expands the set of “owners” to include the accessor.
None of these things are logical or workable in the context of asserting ownership. Your best bet for arguing that artwork should be copyright would be to argue that art is more than just information.
but we are not debating about ownership we are debating, well, a lot of things but I am not saying you need to own something for it to have a value. Hang on didn’t we start out talking about liberty?! lol I need a lie down!
That was interesting though, I do like a good debate type thing
@Iacchus 379869 wrote:
Information does have value but not monetary value
ps tell that to people selling corporate secrets 😉
Dinner calls!
i wrote a big fuckoff post but it got lost in the net somewhere 🙁
@joshd96320 379878 wrote:
i wrote a big fuckoff post but it got lost in the net somewhere 🙁
was it mainly praising my god like ability to debate mixed with my undeniable wit and charm, oh and something about liberty?
@1984 379880 wrote:
was it mainly praising my god like ability to debate mixed with my undeniable wit and charm, oh and something about liberty?
spot on 😉
0
Voices
63
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › David
