Holy shit! Tis horrible...

[Calum]

this issue is quite simple to me.

boycotting means less copies are sold, which harms whoever is being boycotted.

piracy is free advertising, not harm, to the people who should be being boycotted instead of pirated.

Obviously people who pirate are reluctant to give up what they 'get' from piracy, because they know that if they boycotted instead, they wouldn't get their warez fix. sadly,  they kid themselves that their piracy has the same effect as if they were boycotting.

They should take their heads from their posteriors and at least admit that they give free advertising to anybody who's stuff they pirate.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher:
Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression.  It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys).  Because customers don't have much of a choice.  Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen.  It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen.  Most boycotts are ineffective.

I happen to disagree. You make it sound like Linux is not a viable alternative. If Palladium comes out and people aren't allowed the freedoms they are used to. And if those people can get those freedoms back by using Linux I think they will. You may be a correct in that it would not be a boycott because in a boycott you usually temporarily stop using a product until policies are changed. I think if people switch to Linux in a boycott of Microsoft and Palladium they will never go back, even if Microsoft changes their tune. Linux is on the verge of being capable of doing that without any M$ slipups. With the added benefit of Microsoft slipups Linux can't lose.

[TheGreatPoo]

AARRGH!  I can't keep up with you people!  You respond too damn fast.  :mad:

Ok, to respond to the "Intelectual Property" Argument going on somwhere way the hell up there:

http://www.gnutella.com/forums/proantignutes/904

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher:
Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression.  It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys).  Because customers don't have much of a choice.  Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen.  It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen.  Most boycotts are ineffective.

i must also respond to this.

i CANNOT abide people who advocate apathy.
if you want to be apathetic then go for it but DO NOT tell other people to be apathetic. apathy is the reason things don't change fast enough. it is the reason that most of the world is hungry and there are dozens of wars raging in the world.
The only reason that large numbers of people wouldn't use, for instance, linux is if a lot of people loudly mouthed off about how there would be no point trying to boycott a monopoly. do you see where i'm going with this? if you do not try to do something then you WILL fail to do it.

People who advocate apathy are too scared of change to admit that there could be something better. I dealt with that particular demon a long time ago and i get very frustrated with people who consistently say that there's no point trying to change things. if you really believe that then you might as well go and jump this afternoon.

[KernelPanic]

- Standing Ovation -

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:

i must also respond to this.

i CANNOT abide people who advocate apathy.
if you want to be apathetic then go for it but DO NOT tell other people to be apathetic. apathy is the reason things don't change fast enough. it is the reason that most of the world is hungry and there are dozens of wars raging in the world.
The only reason that large numbers of people wouldn't use, for instance, linux is if a lot of people loudly mouthed off about how there would be no point trying to boycott a monopoly. do you see where i'm going with this? if you do not try to do something then you WILL fail to do it.

People who advocate apathy are too scared of change to admit that there could be something better. I dealt with that particular demon a long time ago and i get very frustrated with people who consistently say that there's no point trying to change things. if you really believe that then you might as well go and jump this afternoon.

WTF!?!?!?!?!?

Whilst I laud your objection to apathy, Calum, I wish you would not be so damn quick to flame people!  Its good to stand up against apathy, but not good to be so radically anti-apathetic that you find apathy where it dosn't really exist!

I am not not not advocating apathy. Read my sig.  I am boycotting the RIAA and have been encouraging others to do so for some time.

Did I even once say 'Don't Boycott', did I once say 'Sit down and shut up, theres nothing you can do about it.'???  No, if fact I have said nothing but the opposite.  I write a long post telling people to refuse to give in to the opressive legal action by the RIAA and I get accused of being

 

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
too scared of change to admit that there could be something better

WTF!?!?!?!?!?

The point I was making was that a boycott may not be enough to stop the beast.  And often, boycotts do fail.  I never said don't try.  There are many many ways to fight opression, boycotting is only one of them.  I advocate using many different means, including but not limited to, boycotting in order to stop the menace.  And that is about as far from  apathy as you can get!  It would be foolish to assume that boycotting is the only means the public has to make their opinions heard, and even more foolish to assume that every boycott will succeed and that all other forms of resistance should be left behind.

I say, and have always said:

A:  Boycott the RIAA

B:  Make your opinion that the RIAAs practices are harmful to both the public and artists heard

C:  Keep on file sharing, webcasting, and burning CD!  

While A and B will strike crippling blows, C will be the fatal wound.

We have common enemies, lets not fight amongst ourselves.

V

[voidmain]

I have to admit I got a similar impression, but must have been mostly wrong about it. I still do not agree with the file sharing, never have, even in the beginning before the big boys started whining about it. I believe you should be able to do anything with a music CD once you own it for your own personal use. That does not include burning a copy and giving it to your buddy, unless it is specifically permitted by the license. If I do not agree to the license of the people that created the music I will not listen to said music. Just as I do not use Microsoft software because I do not agree to their license.

Even if I do not agree with a law, I will not break the law, especially when I don't agree with the idiot behind the stupid license. I'll just not support him by not purchasing his product, and I will not support him by passing the product along to get others hooked on said product (either music or proprietary software, it's all the same to me). If I think the product is good enough and there is no free alternative then I will purchase said product for my enjoyment.

I think we are all against RIAA and agencies like them, but for differing reasons. I don't want my personal freedoms taken away. Things like being able to rip my CD and create OGG files to play on my personal computer, not to pass them all over the net. If it weren't for this activity there wouldn't be proprietary DRM type CD-ROMs on the horizon which will hamper my personal freedom. There would be no proprietary DRM CDs and DVDs to hamper my personal freedom. I know you don't agree with it but that's how I feel about it.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Doctor V]

There is a big difference between these two statements:

Don't boycott, it won't work.

and

Boycott, but it might not work.

Statement 1 is apathy,  Statement 2 is logic.

If everyone just up and stopped using Microsoft and stopped buying RIAA CDs, and Nestle foods, and Sony equipment etc, I'd throw up my arms and celebrate.  But I just don't see it happening overnight.  I think boycotts are great, but I don't want to be too optimistic about their success.  I want to take a realistic stance, if a bit pessimitic.

My real life example:  I just moved in with my gf.  I set up my computer that runs Redhat, and am teaching her to use it.  She is basically computer illitearte and knows very little about the ongoing battles with the media corporations, or any of the M$'s evils.  I am teaching her how to use Linux and all.  But if I just all of the sudden threw up my arms and told her to stop buying CDs and Nestle foods, and Sony crap and all the rest of a long list of products from corrupt corporations, she, her family and her friends would probably think I was some kind of idealist lunatic (which I might just be).  I'd much rather take things one step at a time.

Notice the Ne$tle boycott is failing.  This is just one of many examples.

If all of the sudden we all stopped file sharing, the RIAA's legal action would stop, and we'd have to continue to pay 20$ for a CD.  The price would probably rise to 30$ or maybe $40, $50.  MP3 that you can only listen to 3 times would cost $2.  Numerous things that we are able to do today would become a thing of the past.  The RIAA would keep control over the industry, and independant artists would have alot of trouble getting their music out.

[Doctor V]

I believe that file sharing should be legal.  File sharing will revolutionize music.  It will allow artists to be heard even if they are unwilling to sign big company contracts.  This will remove the artist's dependance on the big record labels, and will also let the public hear the music of artists without having to fork over wads of cash.  File sharing and webcasting is the independant artists dream come true, and the record labels nightmare.  The labels will try to stop it by any means necessary.  If the means to spread music like this exists, why not use it.  

File sharing is just the next step in the evolution of the distribution of music.  First, all music was live, then there were records, then AM radio, then FM radio, then tapes, then CDs, and now MP3 and Ogg.  The media companys tried to stop most of these.  They tried to block audio tapes, and even FM radio.  I believe that the labels are nothing but parasites.  They suck money from artists and the public and give nothing back.  Because what they give can be done by everyday people.  They want to keep control of music by taking away people's ability to do that.

The fact is, the hackers will always stay one step ahead of the media giants.  People have the means to file share today, and no matter how hard the corps try, they won't be able to take that away.  Eventually, the RIAA will come to accept this (just as they did with casette tapes).  They will take harsher and harsher measures to stop gnutella, and those very measures are what will bring support to the boycott.

How about the ave. citizen of China.  They can't afford to buy CD at those prices.  Now, with file sharing, they can hear the music they want to.  The RIAA isn't losing any sales.  The Chinese wouldn't have been able to buy the CDs anyways.  Nobody gains anything by stopping the Chinese from using gnutella, but the Chinese lose out alot.  And thats not right.  A boycott would be meaningless in China because they can't buy the music to begin with.  I'm not about to tell the Chinese to stop listening to Metallica, Led Zepplin, the Grateful Dead and Calum.

Edit: spelling

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Doctor V [*fish*] ]

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by Tux:
- Standing Ovation -

-mild grumbling from Dr.V-

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Doctor V [*fish*] ]

[lazygamer]

/gives ovation!

Ok first off, contempt breeds piracy. It's not just getting something free, it's having no desire for loyalty to the corporations who are in charge of everything. Whether you have real reasons for hating them, or just general copout reasons, many pirates don't feel the corps are their friend.

How do you feel towards the Linux revolution? How do you feel towards Microsoft? The Linux people have given their time, and will continue to give their time, just so you can have a free product. You can't help but love them.

How would you feel about Microsoft if they charged  what they do now for Wind0ze, but it was ultra stable, fast, and the upgrade cycle was more forgiving. There was no spyware, no Palladium or product activation. Would you be so damn mad at them?

Now let's take RIAA. What if CDs cost $5, and the artists got a much larger piece of the cake then they do now, would you be so mad at RIAA?

CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!


Ok a follow up to the filesharing story.

The war continues

 

quote:The Danish Anti Pirat Gruppen (Anti Piracy Group) is to continue targeting Net users who swap copyright material illegally.

Confirmation that the APG is to continue its hard line comes after it issued invoices totalling 1m Danish Crowns (

[Doctor V]

Another like I want people to read:

The Problem with Music

I believe that this is not a war about the rights to the content, its about the means of distribution of the content.

[lazygamer]

That is an awesome article! So are my favorite mass market "loo-sahs" like Limp Bizkit and Eminem enslaved in such a system? Limp Bizkit I can see, but good ol' Em?  

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
/gives ovation!
CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!

Bull shit. Corporate hate leads to not using products from said corporation. Lusers breed piracy.

[TheQuirk]

quote:Originally posted by void main:


Bull shit. Corporate hate leads to not using products from said corporation. Lusers breed piracy.

Word. If Windows was a great product, then I'd use it. If CDs would cost less and the artists would actually get a substantial amount of money, then I'd feel better about buying the CDs.

I own every piece of software I use - even Windows (well, I got it with a few OEM computers and laptops), Dreamweaver and Photoshop (student discounts for the last two.)

I usually don't hate the company as much as I hate their product - and if I do, then I'm not going to use their product at all, no matter the quality or the price.