^.^
<dances with Ares and shares a cookie with her> 
quote:
Ares stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
My art has been removed.
Are you sure? When I went to look, I just got a "Page not public" message. Can you actually tell if he's stopped using your art, or if he's just keeping you from seeing it?
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about Pirotess:
Are you sure? When I went to look, I just got a "Page not public" message. Can you actually tell if he's stopped using your art, or if he's just keeping you from seeing it?
I talked to him, and he said that he'd give my proper credit and stuff.
*tackles the cookie from Kat* 
quote:
Ares thought about the meaning of life:
I talked to him, and he said that he'd give my proper credit and stuff.
Ok. Page changed when I checked it again, I guess my first check was while he was actually updating it or something.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
So what you're saying is it's okay to steal from rich people, but not from poor people?Interesting.
wow, egging people on, and putting words in my mouth.
i said it was a seprate issue and should be treated diffrently. I don't recall saying it being ok or not ok.
quote:
Bloodsage said this about your mom:
How is this different from stealing music?Duh, duh, dunnnnn!
Well, if he stole her art and used it without permission, is one thing.
Claiming it to be his own, isn't just theft, it's plaguerism.
Stealing music is theft, but claiming that said music is your own, is theft and plaguerism.
So while both is stealing, she's having two crimes being committed against her. I believe that is why other members of this board are in arms about it, because they aren't COMPLETE hypocrites in this case.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while diadem gently hums:
wow, egging people on, and putting words in my mouth.i said it was a seprate issue and should be treated diffrently. I don't recall saying it being ok or not ok.
Then you're simply wrong: they're exactly the same issue. Appropriating someone else's intellectual property for one's own use without permission is the same regardless of media.
Your example, however, was one of beginner vs. established. . .not many other ways to read that than the way I did.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
These two statements are logically incompatible:
quote:
Theft is theft. It is what it is, no matter the situation or the mindset of those participating in it.However, if your personal moral compass allows you leeway to commit theft of intellectual property that you think is being protected through abusive legal activity, I don't fault you. I won't exactly be surprised if something bad happens to you because of it, because the law's like that, but I won't criticize your decision.
How can you say theft is theft regardless of the situation, then give an example you obviously consider an exception.
I call shenanigans; pick one side or the other.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
Drak,These two statements are logically incompatible:
How can you say theft is theft regardless of the situation, then give an example you obviously consider an exception.
I call shenanigans; pick one side or the other.
I don't consider it to not be theft. I think that if you commit theft under a situation you find morally-acceptable, and are willing to face the potential eventual consequences for doing so, I have nothing that I can say in criticism against it. I am willing to believe that, for most individuals, the law is not the whole of their individual morality - and thus for those people who present what I consider to be an acceptable reason for violating the law (so long as they are also prepared to accept its consequences), I have no qualms with their actions. It doesn't make it legal, and I get annoyed when people violating the law complain when they get punished for it, but if someone is prepared to violate the law for something they believe is acceptable then I have no moral troubles with their actions.
I don't see how these two statements are incompatible. Theft is always theft. The actions that one takes in breaking the law will always be breaking the law, no matter what reasons they have for it. But that does not mean that I always view every violation of the law as something truly reprehensible. I wouldn't say that the law should not apply to you - if you get caught, you get caught, and it's silly to say that your punishment should be eliminated on moral grounds. But I respect your decision to do what you did.
If that is somehow in conflict, I'd be interested to know why.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Then you're simply wrong: they're exactly the same issue. Appropriating someone else's intellectual property for one's own use without permission is the same regardless of media.Your example, however, was one of beginner vs. established. . .not many other ways to read that than the way I did.
ares and my musician friend have no lawyers to back them and no real means of defending themselves against palgerisim. however, it isn't their livelyhood either. the attack is also much more personal in its damage than financial, at least at the moment [ 11-18-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Drakkenmaw absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I don't consider it to not be theft. I think that if you commit theft under a situation you find morally-acceptable, and are willing to face the potential eventual consequences for doing so, I have nothing that I can say in criticism against it. I am willing to believe that, for most individuals, the law is not the whole of their individual morality - and thus for those people who present what I consider to be an acceptable reason for violating the law (so long as they are also prepared to accept its consequences), I have no qualms with their actions. It doesn't make it legal, and I get annoyed when people violating the law complain when they get punished for it, but if someone is prepared to violate the law for something they believe is acceptable then I have no moral troubles with their actions.I don't see how these two statements are incompatible. Theft is always theft. The actions that one takes in breaking the law will always be breaking the law, no matter what reasons they have for it. But that does not mean that I always view every violation of the law as something truly reprehensible. I wouldn't say that the law should not apply to you - if you get caught, you get caught, and it's silly to say that your punishment should be eliminated on moral grounds. But I respect your decision to do what you did.
If that is somehow in conflict, I'd be interested to know why.
Your use of "however" to begin the second paragraph connects the two ideas, making the second an exception to the first, which said there could be no exceptions. It's a grammar thing.
Further, I think you confuse the issue, and glorify thieves, by trying to drag morality into this. Face it: no one stealing music does so out of any particular sense of moral outrage. That's simply the bullshit justification they use to make themselves feel better about their greed and selfishness. There is nothing moral or respectible or the least bit socially conscious about stealing music; it is fundamentally about spoiled people trying to live beyond their means.
Finally, your underlying thesis that anything is okay as long as the person doing it thinks so is utterly reprehensible. But that's a different discussion entirely.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, diadem absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
ares and my musician friend have no lawyers to back them and no real means of defending themselves against palgerisim. however, it isn't their livelyhood either. the attack is also much more personal in its damage than financial, at least at the moment
So this situation is less bad, then?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Glad I don't have to fight music pirating anymore. 
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Cuba:
So this situation is less bad, then?
why do you keep making assumptions of what i'm saying? I said they are different. Different. Not better. Not worse. Different. As in one is professional one is armature.
Seeing how these replies to my posts in this thread all seem to be for your entertainment (as they appear to be attempts to evoke some sort of emotion instead of prove a point because they do not deal with the matter at hand, rather make inappropriate conclusions to my statement and attack the assumptions that you just made yourself instead of the statements), I'm gonna end my posts on this matter for this thread and grab something to eat instead. [ 11-19-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]
quote:
Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Your use of "however" to begin the second paragraph connects the two ideas, making the second an exception to the first, which said there could be no exceptions. It's a grammar thing.Further, I think you confuse the issue, and glorify thieves, by trying to drag morality into this. Face it: no one stealing music does so out of any particular sense of moral outrage. That's simply the bullshit justification they use to make themselves feel better about their greed and selfishness. There is nothing moral or respectible or the least bit socially conscious about stealing music; it is fundamentally about spoiled people trying to live beyond their means.
Finally, your underlying thesis that anything is okay as long as the person doing it thinks so is utterly reprehensible. But that's a different discussion entirely.
So... your disagreements with the post are that I used one word in a manner which you think is incorrect as far as grammar goes, and that the things I believe... you believe different things about.
*Shrug.* Sorry about the misused grammar.
