um, that's idiotic. We've stated very clearly why it is illegal. I don't want you stealing my work or my ideas either. You're quite the arrogant one to ignore all this and then rhetorically call it "circular reasoning".
I think I have a bit of a corner case, but hear me out please! I've been looking for a copy of a Zane VHS movie made in 1997, to no avail - apparently it was never converted to DVD and for whatever reason it never made it's way onto any of the umpteen Zane comps. I've been running an ebay search alert and ditto with a porn auction site and nada. It's as if this film doesn't exist anymore. Short of an individual uploading the content to the net, I don't think I'll ever see this flick in my lifetime. I feel like I'm wrong to say this, but if I saw this film listed as a torrent or on a forum available for illegal DL, as part of a google search, I'd do it. And that's stealing, which sucks. =/ Don't get me wrong, I don't condone stealing, IP or otherwise. I only posted this here b/c it's tangentially related to the OP and this is a well read thread, and maybe someone could give me some insight into tracking down this elusive tape haha.
I don't really care what people do personally, and I empathize with your situation. I just don't like when a guy stands there throwing bullshit at everyone like zane or whatever his name is.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 11:16PM
page 7. Ah the convenience of it! I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, so I can take it for nothing. Wow!Too much trouble to sort it all out? When in doubt, take it for nothing.(inconvenience} Page 7 again:Those bad old movie makers! Serves 'em right if you steal their stuff; they stole someone else's (moral justification) Page 7 yet again:It isn't REALLY a product. They already got their money for the thing with MASS. They aren't entitled to any more.(product has no mass; not a real product) Page 8:It's all a racket. Go ahead and steal from them, because they're thieves too.(moral justification) page 9:Movies are not the same viz a viz copyright law as music, because no one has yet prosecuted for a "downloaded" movie. I call that a semantic perambulation at the very least.. (product has no mass; not a product) page 14:(moral justification) page 14 again:If this does not imply that creators of media do not deserve compensation because of moral turpitude, what does it mean? If your issue in that post with the extension of copyright protections does not suggest that older material should be public domain, what is it saying?(moral justification/product is too old not to be public domain) Just a mention of this "give everyone a moral education and the stealing will stop" idea. I'm as big an optimist for the human race as I know. Give a fella a little respect and a smile and, chances are, he'll give you the same. But Len, the human is a very complicated beast. Telling him the right thing to do, even PROVING it's the right thing to do, won't guarantee that he'll do it. Even showing him that doing the wrong thing will get him into a whole lot of trouble won't necessarily stop him from doing the wrong thing. That's why we have laws; not for the good and wise, but for the stupid and the foolish and the remorseless who don't give a shit about right and wrong. If you think I'm wrong, read over THIS thread. Time and again those who sought to justify piracy were told by people in the industry that it was wrong and hurtful and possibly dangerous to them, and they have been quoted laws and news items to prove every word of what they were told. And still, you and Zaer and others continue to say no, none of that is so. It isn't stealing. It doesn't hurt anybody.
If YOU, an intelligent responsible adult are unaffected by the 'moral education' of the last 14 pages, do you really suppose that educating our youth will do much more good? And, even if it would work, how do you propose to accomplish teaching ethics in a public school system that currently fails to teach reading to a third of those who pass through it?
Edited by - duefuss on 3/19/2010 11:21:21 PM Edited by - duefuss on 3/20/2010 12:00:10 AM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 11:38PM
Thanks -- I think, but the only thing I'm much good for anymore is keeping the State Store in business and doing the chores the boss leaves for me every morning.
Nobody likes to hear this, and that's probably why my post on it and the others bringing it up has been ignored by both "sides" of this debate. The truth is that things have changed, for good. Once it's out there, the only thing you can do to avoid it spreading are small scale sanctions, and it will only make a small dent in the downloading anyway. Downloading DOES hurt people, of course it does (don't quote me and stop here), BUT in the reality we now are in (and will be for the forseeable future) there is no other solution than dealing with the fact. These industries will be slimmed down significantly, they can't afford to employ as many people, nor to charge as much. But they will not disappear completely, as people still want the product, and would start to pay if the supply dried up completely. A new equillibrium will be found, and as this drags out with lawsuits etc it only serves to delay that new reality slightly. We have no choice but to adapt, no matter how much people want to hammer on questions that are real today but are becoming irrelevant. It does hurt, but there's no way to avoid the hurt. Cut your losses and move on to new markets unless you have a brilliant concept going. Consumers will also suffer but the transition is unavoidable.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Mar 20 2010 : 1:05PM
What we have here are people who seem to think that if they want something they are somehow entitled to it. WRONG You want a DVD go out and buy the fucking thing. Like I said before if you are going to be a fucking thief at least have the balls to say to me yes I'm stealing your shit. Instead of being a cocksucking little chickenshit mother fucker with no spine trying to tell me you arent stealing it. Jesus, Yer a fucking coward is what you are.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 20 2010 : 1:10PM
JohnW, You are absolutely right, in my view. I think, however, that the current internet landscape of proliferating tube sites and torrents is in for a change. Current events, such as the ACTA negotiations cited above and regulatory pressures for condom use mentioned in other threads, I think, are harbingers of new and greater notice being paid to porn and porn on the 'net by both those in the business and, more ominously, those outside the business. More than ever, I forsee some major changes coming that will greatly curtail the poliferation of free porn, and even the easy availablity of paid downloads. Obviously, I think this will ultimately prove to be good for the business and, by stimulating increased production, good for we customers. But I'm afraid getting to that point is going to mean a lot of regulation and limits on the 'net that nobody here wants to see. It is very frustrating that thesr unwanted changes will happen because of a minority of selfish thoughtless fools who will have no clue what they are bringing down on themselves and all of US until it's too late. Edited by - duefuss on 3/20/2010 1:11:10 PM
I'm reading Tim Russert's Wisdom of Our Fathers and even though it is 100% schmaltzy, I have to add this bit of wisdom: THE STADIUM This father was able to convey a powerful life lesson with nothing more than the slight pressure of his hand. As a twelve-year-old boy in 1942, I was excited about the promise of a professional baseball game on a hot summer night in Oil City, Pennsylvania. My father, a hard worker with a heavy six-day-a-week schedule, had rushed through the day so he could take me to the game. As we approached the stadium, the wide doors near the right-field bleachers opened to accomodate the moving of a giant road scraper. Dozens of fans angled toward the opening, some commenting loudly about a free baseball game. Thinking this was our lucky night, I leaned towards the open doors, but my father's firm grip determined otherwise and we continued toward the ticket line. The action on the field and the winner of the game are long forgotten, but not the silent message of honesty from a loving and disciplined father. -- Frank E. Carlson, Houston, TX, benefits manager, son of Elmer F. Carlson, bread salesman (1900-1943)
Get with the times. Morality is dead. Long live Social Justice! If you won't voluntarily give us your works for free, then we are going to vote leaders in to office to _force_ you to give us your works for free. I'm poor, you're rich. It's only fair. (while this is pure sarcasm, I fear it's a bit too close to reality in America these days )
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 21 2010 : 11:24AM
It's not only pure sarcasm, it's pure error. It's also ; not that it matters. The very LAST thing you will ever see in capitalism is the giving of ANYTHING for free. If you are a tea bagger, make up your fucking mind willl ya'? First you wanna bitch that social programs are terrible because they cost too much and they take money of yours you don't want to give them('social' only means, by the way, programs for the welfare "of the people,, by the people, and for the people." Social-ISM is a largely unrelated POLITICAL term refering to government management of every aspect of its citizens' behavior-- at its extreme, fascism, derived from the fasces a bundle of sticks tied together along with an axe that was a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Now, you want to bitch that 'we'(whoever that is)want you to "voluntarily give us your works for free". That's not political socialism, its voluntarism, something not even those selfish, compassionless, nitwits that Fox News does the thinking for have brought up. Since YOU brought it up, whats wrong with voluntarily giving your works for free? Try it sometime. You can make the world a little bit better and feel a WHOLE LOT better yourself, something you apparently could use. Voluntarism BUILT this country, from the boys that volunteered to fight in the Revolution, to the fact that just about every old barn you see even today was put up by neighbors coming together to help a person they may hardly have known do a job , because, and only because, it was too big a job for him (or her) to do himself. Is it so bad that, in that spirit of helping where help is needed, we make the effort to ensure that men women and children have the medical relief that is available to them and do not suffer and die before their time or lose all they have because they have no access to insurance, or because insurance companies insure you only as long as you don't get too sick? I don't think so, but apparently YOU do. You are entitled, but I'd guess, myself, that you HAVE medical insurance. I'd guess that you've never had a medical emergency only to dicover that your insurance won't cover it; that you've never had to lose your house and savings before Medicaid kicked in to pay for the cancer treatments of your wife or your child. If morality is dead, its because people have gotten so narrow minded and selfish and weak and fearful that they've forgotten that life only stops being pointless and painful when we are caring about someone else MORE than we care about ourselves. If you think that's funny or naive, take a minute to remember those times you were happiest. I don't know you from Adam, but I'll bet most of those times involved CARING about someone or something ELSE more than your fucking payroll deductions or your fuckinf bank account or your fucking politics or if Bill fucking O'Reilly would approve. If I lose my bet, then I pity you, I really really do pity you. Get with the times? Fuck that! Ghange the times!
Duefuss, that is quite a rant! A few comments to continue the off topic discussion: First, I agree with what you say about morality. Can't say I follow what you're getting at with the rest of it. For instance, I'm not sure why you are bringing up arguments about Capitalism, and assuming the guy is a tea bagger-these assumptions seem a bit of a stretch given what he said. Also, there really is no "Capitalism", not for almost 100 years so I don't see how relevant that is to the time period ("today", "get with the times", etc.). What we have is "Social Capitalism" or "Welfare Capitalism" last I checked; it is a combination of both economic systems as are the majority of the nation-states in the world. Now about your "this country was built by volunteers" argument. That is a bit of nonsense. That is NOT what made this country special. Freedoms were. We can find volunteers in all those other countries too. You mention the boys who fought the "lobsterbacks" (Britishes), yet... they volunteered because of IDEAS, specifically those of Thomas Paine. Washington read "Common Sense" to his troops every morning. And to speed this up, what DID make us special, to begin with, was that we had the first Constitution in history that made no mention of "god" or "jesus". That is where all those other freedoms flow from, first one has to be free in one's mind-the freedom of faith. That was the true revolution and your volunteers flowed from that. Innovation made this nation special and great-innovation that was allowed to exist due to these other ideas of FREEDOM. Anyway, I don't want to get into a big thing here, but let's not bastardize the history of the U.S. as it is a proud history, regardless of how awful the system has become today. And if you back the corporate bailouts, then I really really pity you.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 21 2010 : 3:33PM
THAT was quite a rant? Hah! You ain't seen nothin' yet! First, I invite you to point out where I mentioned corporate bailouts. I am neither 'bastardizing' nor misrepresenting our history; merely focusing on an aspect of it that contributed to our founding and prosperity so significantly that this nation would neither have come into being nor long have remained so without it. Freedoms are indeed what made this country special, freedoms established by the sacrifice of volunteers from George Washington on down to Joseph Plumb Martin and his peers, all of whom were volunteers (no soldiers were drafted until the Civil War, and, even then, as in every war, a significant part of those who fought were volunteers}. Freedoms that were articulated and preserved in law by Founders who were never paid one dime for what they did. Freedoms that were preserved by citizens who gave their money and their goods; their time and their children to do so, from the Revolution to the present. As you say, those other countries had volunteers too, who also volunteerd for what THEY believed in. Why, though, does that negate anything I said? To extend a helping hand to those in need is and always has been a HUMAN trait, not merely an American one. Indeed, you will see it commonly done in the rest of the animal kingdom. I recently buried a very good friend who happens to have been a cat. Among other gestures of her affection, whenever my wife or I were ill, that cat would lay against us, day and night, until we were better. To care, to help, is vital to ALL life. So not just our civilization, but every civilization is built and sustained by people coming together and working and sacrificing for the common good, recognizing that their OWN welfare is served by serving the welfare of all. A bit of nonsense? It seems to me that the tea baggers think so, but you better hope it hasn't become nonsense, because people working of their own volition for the common good in everything from the military to the service professions like teaching and nursing, in which they might easily make much better livings doing other things that require less schooling and less work, and much less frustration and heartache, perform work we'd all be in real trouble without. Finally, as for, "there really is no "Capitalism", not for almost 100 years." What have you been smoking? Got a financial advisor? You should, you know. Go tell him there's been no capitalism for 100 years. Get a paycheck? Have investments? Own anything? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, it's because of the private ownership of business that functions for profit and compete freely with other businesses for that profit. I know what others say and perhaps what you are trying to say: that we live in a de facto Corpocracy in which the free market and private ownership of Capitalism has become an illusion. I will not disagree that the big corporations want that to be the case, and work for it, but go ask GM and AIG and Chrysler, and US Steel and GE and AT&T; even Toyota how that plan's been working for them lately. It wasn't Corpocracy or even Government interference or regulation that hurt them. It was competition and a free Worldwide economy, coupled with their own complacency and arrogance and mismanagement that did that. Yeah, I've read Howard Zinn and the rest of the very valid re-examinations of History, nor do I deny that our History is shamed by countless hypocrisies, atrocities, and base behaviors of every kind. But through it all there have been good people always trying to do better and those people are trying still, not for money, not because anyone says they have to, but because they FEEL they have to, because they KNOW it won't get done if they don't do it voluntarily.
Where did you mention corp. bailouts? You called him a “tea bagger”… now unless we are going by a definition you have made up, the term, “tea bagger” refers to the “tea parties” which began in 2009, and corporate bailouts is their main gripe. If you don’t know what you are talking about, it’s not really my problem. And as I said, to start blabbing about how our nation was founded and go on and on about volunteers and never mention our unique Constitution, the freedoms that allowed for everything else that “contributed”… and frankly no mention of Paine, is indeed a “bastardization” of that history. Make your point, but don’t exaggerate to the point of incompetence, k? Let’s not get started on the military okay? I don’t feel in danger from Iraqis and find it deplorable that corporate profits are driving our GNP expenditures…. That is the very NATURE of fascism. You want to swallow the tripe they feed you, go right ahead, but our military is 95% a waste of our money and does NOTHING for the U.S. but rather for select corporations. I don’t back that and only sheep do. Lastly, you can argue with me about Capitalism and its existence, but I can only assume you are a bit ignorant. I did get my Masters in Economics, and that is indeed the science that governs that part of the discussion. I’m not saying that 6 years of schooling guarantees I know more than you on a topic I am very specialized in, but I imagine it likely. True Capitalism ended in 1929. And frankly, the fact that you tell me to talk to a financial advisor indicates you don’t have the first clue. Finance is an aspect of Economics, but if you wanted to refer me to an expert AND had a clue, you’d first recommend an Economist. And if not an economist, a Political Scientist. I have a Bachelors in Finance too, but I learned about Banking, and Time Value of Money, Multiple Regression Analysis, Mortgages, and so forth… you don’t study broad economic systems in Finance classes (which are what create a “financial advisor”), I don’t recall even so much as a prologue that mentions Marx, or Lenin, or Socialism… at all. One studies those topics (unemployment, inflation, distribution of resources, economic systems (like CAPITALISM) in ECONOMICS CLASSES!!!! It really has NOTHING to do with finance my friend.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 21 2010 : 4:01PM
I, for one, didn't say the excerpt was off topic. It decidedly was NOT. The response to it WAS, and pretty irrelevant to the apt and charming Russert quote besides.
Also, I'm NOT saying "de facto capitalism" at all. I'm saying that Capitalism really has no programs by the government. That is why back in the day (of Capitalism) we had unions. Now the government regulates wages, standards, and much, much more. All those things are SOCIALISM, not Capitalism. Welfare is socialism, not capitalism. Today the government even owns corporations (thanks Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama!!), is that Capitalism???? NO, not unless your knowledge of it is about the length of a pamphlet. FDR Socialized our System bud and it hasn't been "Capitalism" since. The list of Socialized Government programs is probably 5 figures, perhaps 6 (ie 100's of thousands). Whatever we have it is a hybrid AND FUCKING A HAS BEEN FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS. It is wise to occasionally step back and question how much you really know about a topic before getting in too deep duefuss. And the more you realize that ultimately you don't know much, the more you'll be inclined to listen to folks who are actually specialized on any given topic, this in turn allows you to learn much from others (realizing everyone is your teacher) and ultimately be a very educated human being. But if you think you know everything about everything, you'll find yourself in corners frequently.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 21 2010 : 6:24PM
I agree with you about the socialism/capitalism hybrid but... Economics is a science is it? I can't believe economists are still claiming what they do is a 'science.' Must be the most inaccurate science ever. It's more surprising when the fuckers get something right (which is about never).
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 21 2010 : 8:38PM
Seedfeeder huffed haughtily:Now you naughty old seedfeeder you be nice to Duefuss. Don't you scold him too badly, you hear? You wanna talk down to someone, find yourself the moron you think I am. You can take your patronizing implication that I'm too ill informed to play with you hot shit experts and put 'em where your proctologist'll find them next time he checks your prostate! Socialism is a form of governance at the heart of which is the notion that an entity calling itself 'The State' regulates the behavior of its citizens. It is not government of the people by the people, but government of the people by a few that for one reason or another, set themselves up as qualified to do so. It is, to my mind, a form of oligarchy, not terribly different from the absolute monarchy the Founders rebelled against. Admittedly that is a terrible oversimplification of the concept but many of the things that conservatives have complained of, such as the gap between rich and poor, the abuse of power and the exploitation of the middle class are actually Socialist complaints too. Social programs like welfare or medicare and regulations in the work place in furtherance of safety or quality are NOT socialism just because you say they are. They were put in place, ALL of them, as the result of the same democratic processes -- the debate and compromise and majority approval of our elected representatives that has generated all of our laws since even before the Constitution. You call them socialism, I think, because someone told you socialism was bad and because you don't like those programs. I suggest to you that you don't like them because you've never had any conscious need of them, because your investments and 401k you think are adequate for your retirement, because you can get insurance, because you've never worked in a mine that was a deathtrap because being safe cost more than the owners wanted to spend. And don't accuse me of not listening while you're standing in that glass house; you might cut yourself on the shards. I didn't say "de facto Capitalism" I said "de facto Corpocracy" It's interesting that you bring up Unions as an example of what socialism has squelched. Never mind that the union movement didn't gain much national traction until AFTER nasty old FDR and his social programs were in force. Unions still exist, they still exert plenty of influence and every one of the 'socialisms' you cited were FAVORED by those unions if not actually instigated by them: the minimum wage, OSHA, Social Security, Medicare, and yes, health reform too. You can indeed thank Bush and Obama for the bailouts, AND de-regulation and non regulation of the fear and greed that propel Wall Street and the Banks for making those bailouts necesssary to protect YOUR retirement saving, YOUR 401k, YOUR investments and YOUR country's solvency, as well as mine. I think a better way might have been found, but that's not the issue here. Scolding someone for being ill informed because he doesn't agree with you is the issue here. Demeaning another's ability to understand instead of challenging his argument is the issue here. Pretending the social welfare is socialism is the issue. You want to know what Socialism is? Study the defunct Soviet Union and , at its extreme, Italy or Germany (it WAS the National SOCIALIST Party, y'know) before WWII. That's Socialism, and it's a long way from a Democratic nation trying to provide care and security for the citizens that ARE its government. Study too how those real Socialist regimes came to power, how demagogues played on the fears and hatreds of the mass of people and told them there were simple answers to all their problems and how the mass of people, in turn, bypassed the government and the rule of law and open debate and freely dispensed information to install these demagogues and GIVE their rights away to them without anyone having to take them. "It is wise to occasionally step back and question how much you really know about a topic before getting in too deep." Next time you want to give advice, try TAKING it first. Now how about somebody getting back on topic or start another "Duefuss is a misguided fool" thread if you want to continue this?
That black is a fair and arguable point... I used to always tell people that I wanted to be an Economist so that when someone asked what I did for a living, I could reply, "I make assumptions!"
You can indicate that I'm the arrogant one... but you outed yourself as ignorant when you told me to speak with a "financial advisor" to learn about Economic Systems. I'll speak with a financial advisor to discuss cost benefit analyses of stocks, bonds, T bills, real estate, etc... I still fail to see their relevance or indicated expertise on "capitalism", "socialism", "tea baggers", or anything to do with Economics in general. I would be willing to bet that you couldn't find ONE financial advisor in 10 that could DEFINE "economics". Don't blame me for your aggressive behavior on a subject you are lacking in. I also see you're too arrogant to backpeddle. Fine, I'll leave you alone, I don't really like to talk to know-it-alls anyway. I'm sure you're specialized in a few things I'm not, and guess what? When those things come up, I'll keep my mouth shut and listen to you... basic rule of life that clearly you're not aware of.
If you "didn't out yourself" then explain why I should talk to a financial adviser to learn about Socialism, Capitalism and so forth? Back that up, why would they know? Why do you indicate they are the experts on this topic? Then we can move on.
Also, it's not about defining "economics" but what do you think Capitalism and Socialism are duefuss? They are ECONOMIC MODELS, so one would indeed need to understand a bit about economics to discuss them intelligently. If your guy cannot define economics, then he cannot understand "capitalism vs. socialism", PERIOD. But you claim he (the finance guy) would indeed know about capitalism (an economic model) and would be able to scoff intelligently at me about how it is no longer in existence. Please elaborate on this and again explain why a finance background gives one insight into economic models like "capitalism", you did indeed say that, TWICE now. So let's have it.
[Link]
AsianAnalPantyhoserGuy Deactivated User
Ass fucking/ foot fetish/ pantyhose= insanity! 465 Posts 3/10
I think tube site owners with stolen content would beg to differ. Millions are earned. Sometimes it's seized by the US government, too.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 23 2010 : 12:30AM
In truth the money was seized because a company associated with Brazzers was an unlicensed money transmitting business. They weren't trying to protect the profits of pornographers, who are, of course, held in low regard by most people.If you look at how laws are created it will appear obvious that the overwhelming majority of them are created primarily for the benefit of the powerful to serve their interests. Most people should understand this.It's not terribly logical to bring morality into this discussion given what the industry is about and how the general public perceives it. As for the argument of sharing vs property appropriation. If one copies a dvd for their own use it's fine, it's covered under fair use. However, if one shares the copy with a friend it suddenly becomes in the opinion of certain content owners (not all as there are differences of opinion among them) property appropriation. Which is fundamentally a subjective opinion devoid of any substantial objective basis to buttress it. Edited by - Zaer on 3/23/2010 12:39:17 AM
Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round! 1551 Posts 5/09
Posted - Mar 23 2010 : 2:29AM
I completed this survey. I pay for my porn, because I prefer quality over quanity. When the producers don't have the money to pay for "new" talent, fans are stuck with watching poor quality titles. Porn producers should use the same tactics that Music producers use regarding illegal downloads...sue a few people to "get the word out". Just like when you see a cop pulling people over for speeding..everyone slows down as they go by.
If I'm not mistaken, I think I perceive the root justification this bozo is using: "Because Pornography is of such low moral character (as perceived by the majority), the rules of morality, specifically in regard to stealing do not apply to it". Again, here is the problem: You won't fess up to being a thief. Make your arguments, but be a man and acknowledge that it is stealing and NOTHING FANCIER!!! I justify screwing Wal-Mart. I say "I have very strong ethics, except when it comes to big, fat, greedy corporations". But if I were asked if it was stealing, say when I trade in a broken item for a brand new one; abusing their return policy. I would indeed reply with a smile, "Why yes, yes it is, stealing of those most satisfying kind in fact-as you cannot get caught!!" Being a thief is one thing... but to be a self righteous thief, who sits on a high horse and says "It's not stealing, it's "sharing"" is beyond pathetic. Grow up.
I just remembered some history. Before tubesites and torrents there was scrambled cable porn. I wonder if anyone had long-term neurological effects of watching it. It seems similar to a Cubist painiting in motion, so watching scrambled porn could be a stepping stone to an artistic perspective, although such an artist would probably have more difficulty getting laid.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 23 2010 : 9:36AM
Aside from using ad hominems you still haven't explained how copying content and sharing it with friends is equivalent to property appropriation. And on another topic, the idea that profit is lost with every download is a highly flawed argument considering that unless you know the person was going to buy it you can't conclude that profit was indeed lost.
So Brazzers knowlingly associated itself with an "unlicensed money transmitting business." Great. More power to them. I knew a guy who sold weed. Excuse me, he was an "unlicensed pharmaceutical distributor." Edited by - Brandon Iron on 3/23/2010 11:53:07 AM
I have explained it. You haven't explained how intellectual property is not property. You also have not explained how pornography is not intellectual property. This is the issue at bar, and no amount of rhetoric will distract from it in any satisfactory way. As I said, not only are you a thief, but you are also a fraud. You also debate this issue like a coward, YOU are the one ignoring valid arguments, you never address any of the valid points presented in this thread or make any rebuttals or arguments of any coherent nature. As I said, grow up. Now, it's your turn and has been a while. You need to explain how intellectual property is not property and/or how pornography is not intellectual property. If you can do neither, then you are a thief and nothing more. If you refuse to address this valid question and/or change the subject, you are a coward. If you refuse to back off your stupid argument due to your inability to answer these RELEVANT questions, then you clearly have no honor.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 1:04AM
Wait, are you the Bakunin of the internet? The second statement is the height of hypocrisy, do you look down on pornography? Yet hang out on a pornography forum and no doubt masturbate to it on a semi-regular basis? Cognitive dissonance?
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 8:51AM
I'll bet it's not a typo. It's a good pun.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 9:43AM
Actually you haven't explained it, you've only given opinions buttressed by beliefs. And the issue is whether or not sharing copies of purchased content is to be considered sharing or the appropriation of property and it appears that after years of discussion about it that such an issue is fundamentally rooted in beliefs and opinions not facts ergo it's impossible to decide conclusively one way or the other.
Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 7:19PM
)
; not that it matters.
