|
|
Post by marc stevens on Jul 15, 2005 18:59:27 GMT -5
Maybe it's me, but is it inconsistent to hail the free market and think that theft is justified?
If there is no morality (right and wrong) in the free market, then you have what we have now i.e., an involuntary society controlled by the anti-social. A sick, parasitic prison experiment on a world-wide basis.
I am not surprised by such a mind-set i.e., it's OK to steal if you can get away with it, after all, most people are taught in government schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 17, 2005 23:40:57 GMT -5
I don't think that it is ok to steal, I just don't believe that aquiring the text is stealing. Do you think downloading music from the interweb is stealing, Marc? By the way, I plan to buy the book shortly.  oh yeah, and I dont want to register because I am a lazy |
|
|
|
Post by CaptainObvious on Jul 18, 2005 10:32:36 GMT -5
I don't think that it is ok to steal, 1. I just don't believe that aquiring the text is stealing. Do you think downloading music from the interweb is stealing, Marc? By the way, I plan to buy the book shortly. 2. oh yeah, and I dont want to register because I am a lazy 1. If the owner of the text, the creator, the one who "gave it life" says what rules you need to play by in order to possess a copy etc. then NOT listening to those rules is stealing. And I believe Marc has made it clear that it is his property... 2. To cure your laziness: register, then if you are going to post just go to this shorter URL (or better yet, bookmark it) --> snipurl.com/AiLLbbs3. There is no 3! 4. If you're gonna buy the book, great, I'm sure you'll register after reading it so you can offer your thoughts in a way that is easier for you to stand out ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 21, 2005 5:36:33 GMT -5
If the owner of the text, the creator, the one who "gave it life" 1. says what rules you need to play by in order to possess a copy etc. then NOT listening to those rules is stealing. 2. And I believe Marc has made it clear that it is his property... That is true, but if I get the text from someone who did not follow the rules, I would not be breaking it. 2. You cannot own letters in a certain sequence. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 22, 2005 5:56:16 GMT -5
So the majority of yall support intellectual property?
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Jul 22, 2005 9:49:11 GMT -5
If the owner of the text, the creator, the one who "gave it life" 1. says what rules you need to play by in order to possess a copy etc. then NOT listening to those rules is stealing. 2. And I believe Marc has made it clear that it is his property... That is true, but if I get the text from someone who did not follow the rules, I would not be breaking it. 2. You cannot own letters in a certain sequence. Just a rationalzation for being dishonest. And downloading songs from the internet without paying for them is stealing. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 22, 2005 11:22:40 GMT -5
What is it youre stealing exactly? The mp3? The money that might have been made if you hadn't "stolen" it? Break it apart and it comes crashing down. |
|
|
|
Post by Also a guest on Jul 22, 2005 12:54:21 GMT -5
What is it youre stealing exactly? The mp3? The money that might have been made if you hadn't "stolen" it? Break it apart and it comes crashing down. This is probably the same arguement Bill Clinton came up with when trying to say oral sex is not real sex. I agree with Marc Stevens that down loading songs on line with out paying for them is stealing. So is down loading a writer/author's work be it a book or any otherwritten work that is for sale and you have not paid for it or asked permission from the author to use it. It is also stealing when a movie is down loaded from the internet. I know someone who does this and I hope she gets caught. Her excuse is that she uses software from Germany where it is not "illegal" or considered wrong. It is still stealing. The things people say to justify their dishonesty. I say if it is not yours, don't touch it. |
|
|
|
Post by hardtoremember on Jul 22, 2005 13:15:03 GMT -5
Our energy is being harvested already by those with dishonest intentions... No person likes to do something (use energy) without getting something in return for their labor. As humans in the beginning we used BARTER as a form of transfering energy to and from each other... Marc is simply asking for his return in the transfer of the energy you earned by your labor for his labor... that is fair in any sense... it doesnt matter if it is a mp3 or text... it is the labor (energy) of making something others want or need.
Take a moment to try and step outside the Hallucination(s) that have been made for us and respect anothers labors (energy) as you would want your labors (energy) respected.
With respect,
HTR
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 23, 2005 7:23:18 GMT -5
I want my labors to be protected through science and technology, not guns and the government. This is just an emotional topic that yall cannot stand to think that it is not theft or stealing, because nothing is being taken. Yall just like to lump people together.
It seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity as guest on Jul 23, 2005 10:23:17 GMT -5
I must say that this is a very complicated subject, and while I used to believe in "intellectual property rights," it is becoming a subject that I no longer feel totally comfortable with. If you whistle a tune and claim that it is your's, am I then not supposed to whistle the same tune? You whistled it in a space where I could hear it, did you not?
I'm not against Marc's making good money for his good work, I'm simply trying to point out that, just as Marc has openned our eyes to other issues, perhaps this is one where we need to remove our sunglasses and re-examine the view...
|
|
|
|
Post by also a guest on Jul 23, 2005 10:37:59 GMT -5
No, it is not very complicated. If you have paid for the tune you whistle or give credit to the song writer for the tune you whistle, then it is not dishonest. If you claim the tune you whistle as your own creation when it is not, then your are a liar and a thief.
Some people believe that if they have a perceived "need" that they are then entitled and have claim to whatever property they want, be it tangible or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity as guest on Jul 23, 2005 10:51:28 GMT -5
To continue... I was VERY impressed when I got Marc's book and found that it was not "copyrighted." This told me that he practiced what he preached. Now to claim that someone is "stealing" his property that he has publicly exposed... well, I'm not sure. I have a hard time deciding where the "line in the sand" is. We can and do talk about it and discuss the concepts, and that is not stealing. We are not using force if we take the book to a Xerox machine. True, Marc is not getting money that he would LIKE to have gotten from the ideas that he worked long and hard to develop and try and profit from. But does his hard work mean that he has a claim to anything that comes out of it? If so, then he should be getting paid for our discussions here.
I'm more leaning to the idea that intellectual property is as falacious as the constitution unless you have specifically signed a contract. If I hear Frank Sinatra on the radio am I then under some kind of obligation never to repeat those words and that melody?
I think that modern technology is forcing us to come to terms with the inconsistencies in some of our ideas, and intellectual property rights is one of them. The inconsistency is the part where the contract is one-sided. If you publish your work, then it is out there - period. If you decide to only expose your work under very tightly controlled contractually defined circumstances, then that is another issue.
It comes down to having your cake and eating it too. Can't be done. If you want to spread your ideas and think that you can profit from them in some manner, then you are risking losing control to someone who is more capable of wresting that profit from them. But if you keep control tightly held there is a posibility that you will not be able to profit. That is the conundrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity as guest on Jul 23, 2005 11:12:22 GMT -5
I think you have twisted what I said or perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. I did NOT say that I am claiming this as my tune. I simply am whistling it. I'm whistling it without paying you for the right to whistle it.
If I were claiming that it was my creation then that would be fraud, which is a completely different issue.
Marc has shown us that government is a fiction. At least it is a fiction unless we have clearly, and with full understanding, signed up for the deal. But then, is not "intellecual property rights" but a creation of this fictional government? How can something that does not exist create something that does?
Marc has shown that contractually government is a contradiction. Bravo! I now say that we take the same scrutiny to the concept of intellectual property rights.
Show me my signature.
You proclaiming a right does not make it so.
As someone else said elsewhere, "I proclaim that I own Canada. Everyone OUT!"
If I think up an idea, and tell no one, then it is in my control. I own it. But if I tell someone else without swearing them to secrecy, then I've voluntarily given up control over that idea.
Now I'm NOT saying that respecting the wishes of others is not perhaps beneficial to smooth societal functioning, but treating others with respect and treating others with the barrel of a gun are two completely different things.
Most if not all of what society is is based upon the ideas of others that we have chosen to make use of. That's what progress is. An idea is of no value unless shared. The act of sharing the idea is what gives it the value that you want to protect by not sharing it. How funny!
If you don't want someone to "steal" your idea it is very simple... don't put it out where it can be stolen!
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 23, 2005 14:11:18 GMT -5
|
|
