The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Vinnie on November 01, 2010, 02:38:19 PM

Title: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Vinnie on November 01, 2010, 02:38:19 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/print/?q=MDllNmVmNGU1NDVjY2IzODBlMjYzNDljZTMzNzFlZjc=

It takes about 5 minutes to read. You will like it.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on November 01, 2010, 03:05:20 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/print/?q=MDllNmVmNGU1NDVjY2IzODBlMjYzNDljZTMzNzFlZjc=

It takes about 5 minutes to read. You will like it.

It's an awesome classic.  Read it in high school.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: anarchir on November 01, 2010, 03:21:12 PM
Yes, me too. Excellent.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: velojym on November 01, 2010, 05:39:18 PM
x3

I wonder whether it'd be even approved nowadays.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: AOD_Horseman on November 02, 2010, 02:38:16 AM
As soon as I saw the thread title, I instantly thought "This guy just read Harrison Bergeron." I love when I'm pretend-psychic.
I bring up the story often in cases of censorship, forced "equality" where some people are more equal than others, etc. I've loved it since I first read it in ninth grade.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: dalebert on November 02, 2010, 10:44:28 AM
I haven't watched it yet so I don't know if it's good.

, the film inspired by the short story.

 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282015/[/url)
Quote
2081 is a 2009 science fiction short film, which premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on May 29, 2009. It is directed and written by Chandler Tuttle. It is based on the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by author Kurt Vonnegut and stars James Cosmo, Julie Hagerty, and Armie Hammer with narration by Academy Award nominee Patricia Clarkson and an original score by Lee Brooks performed by the Kronos Quartet and Czech Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra.

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
BitTorrent:
http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2341420/6181687/
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: BobRobertson on November 02, 2010, 02:03:17 PM
It's been done before,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113264/

Looking forward to 2081, too.

I'd never read the story before just now, linked from this thread. The movie is ruined, now that I know how it will end.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
http://www.amazon.com/2081-based-Vonneguts-22Harrison-Bergeron-22/dp/B002Y2BDEE

Here's a link for people who actually pay for the value they want to receive.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: dalebert on November 02, 2010, 04:34:52 PM
http://www.amazon.com/2081-based-Vonneguts-22Harrison-Bergeron-22/dp/B002Y2BDEE

Here's a link for people who actually pay for the value they want to receive.

FWIW, the YouTube link I provided is a rental that requires payment.  I provided an option to pay.

Did your parents frequently use guilt-trips as a persuasion tactic?
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 04:49:46 PM
FWIW, the YouTube link I provided is a rental that requires payment.  I provided an option to pay.

Oh my bad, man. I didn't realize there was a link on the vid.

Did your parents frequently use guilt-trips as a persuasion tactic?

No. They beat me, which I why I don't communicate with them anymore.

None of which invalidates what I was saying.

To start with, I wouldn't call it a guilt trip. I was making a moral argument. The reason I am making a moral argument is because no other method has any possibility of having an effect. If people want to make copies of stuff and share it, there's nothing a moral person can do about it because I.P. law is immoral etc etc. 

The only option is to make it VERY clear that people who "Pirate" or whatever are deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

That ain't a guilt trip, and I stand by it. It is social pressure, it is a moral argument, and it could certainly make a person who already feels guilty feel more guilty I guess.

Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 04:58:15 PM
Also, sorry if that post came off crabbier than I intended. I was certainly crabby, but not like, enraged or something.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: dalebert on November 02, 2010, 06:24:03 PM
The only option is to make it VERY clear that people who "Pirate" or whatever are deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

Is watching broadcast TV immoral?  Is sitting in the shade of a tall building (off the property) to escape the heat immoral?  Is nibbling on the core of an apple that someone bought, ate, and discarded immoral?  Is eating a free sample at the grocery store immoral?  Are the homeless people at the shelter I volunteer for (do free work for) immoral?  And here's one that ought to be considered for further discussion-- Is letting impoverished people pick up discarded bottles and cans, cleaning your property for free, immoral?  (cans you would have just thrown away)

Deriving value from someone's labor without exchanging something happens constantly.  Burden of proof, man.  If you want to make a moral argument, you need more than that.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: hellbilly on November 02, 2010, 06:25:35 PM
The only option is to make it VERY clear that people who "Pirate" or whatever are deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

Is watching broadcast TV immoral?  Is sitting in the shade of a tall building (off the property) to escape the heat immoral?  Is nibbling on the core of an apple that someone bought, ate, and discarded immoral?  Is eating a free sample at the grocery store immoral?  Are the homeless people at the shelter I volunteer for (do free work for) immoral?  And here's one that ought to be considered for further discussion-- Is letting impoverished people pick up discarded bottles and cans, cleaning your property for free, immoral?  (cans you would have just thrown away)

Deriving value from someone's labor without exchanging something happens constantly.  Burden of proof, man.  If you want to make a moral argument, you need more than that.



Those examples are terrible comparisons!
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 06:36:35 PM
Is watching broadcast TV immoral?

The terms of television shows are that you watch the commercials.

Is sitting in the shade of a tall building (off the property) to escape the heat immoral?

No.

Is nibbling on the core of an apple that someone bought, ate, and discarded immoral?

No. It has been discarded.

Is eating a free sample at the grocery store immoral?

It's a *FREE SAMPLE*

Are the homeless people at the shelter I volunteer for (do free work for) immoral?

I have no idea.

And here's one that ought to be considered for further discussion-- Is letting impoverished people pick up discarded bottles and cans, cleaning your property for free, immoral?  (cans you would have just thrown away)

Is making a copy of a movie finding a discarded movie? NO.

Nothing you have cited has anything AT ALL to do with respecting the terms of content creators. Copying a movie that is otherwise for sale, is deriving the value the seller places on the content without paying the creator what they expect to be paid.

If you do not want to pay what the content creator is asking, then don't. But don't fucking sit there and pretend that going ahead and using that product without paying the sellers price is somehow noble. That's a load of shit, man.

If an album is worth the 40 minutes it lasts to listen to, or a movie is worth the 90 minutes it tales to watch, then it's worth 40 or 90 minutes you spent of your time, which has a non-zero value.

I hate this fucking topic because it always ends with the other person skating around the issue. People who are otherwise awesome and clear headed TIME AND TIME AGAIN blow this off because of their own guilty consciences.

You download shit, and gain value from it, and you don't pay the price that the content creator is asking for it. That's not very cool. Period.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on November 02, 2010, 06:40:38 PM
Is watching broadcast TV immoral?

The terms of television shows are that you watch the commercials.

Hmm.  I don't remember signing that contract.  I don't feel obligated to, and usually don't.  I deliberately skip them using my DVR.  I must be acting immorally.   :roll:
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: davann on November 02, 2010, 06:41:36 PM
The only option is to make it VERY clear that people who "Pirate" or whatever are deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

Is watching broadcast TV immoral?  Is sitting in the shade of a tall building (off the property) to escape the heat immoral?  Is nibbling on the core of an apple that someone bought, ate, and discarded immoral?  Is eating a free sample at the grocery store immoral?  Are the homeless people at the shelter I volunteer for (do free work for) immoral?  And here's one that ought to be considered for further discussion-- Is letting impoverished people pick up discarded bottles and cans, cleaning your property for free, immoral?  (cans you would have just thrown away)

Deriving value from someone's labor without exchanging something happens constantly.  Burden of proof, man.  If you want to make a moral argument, you need more than that.


Mere excuses for theft.

Edit:

Bad rationalizing for the desire to steal.

Theft is wrong it does not matter what fancy words or fancy rationalizing Dalebert uses, it is still wrong. It will even be wrong when a majority of people vote in agreement that it is not. Theft is theft.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on November 02, 2010, 06:42:25 PM
The only option is to make it VERY clear that people who "Pirate" or whatever are deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

Is watching broadcast TV immoral?  Is sitting in the shade of a tall building (off the property) to escape the heat immoral?  Is nibbling on the core of an apple that someone bought, ate, and discarded immoral?  Is eating a free sample at the grocery store immoral?  Are the homeless people at the shelter I volunteer for (do free work for) immoral?  And here's one that ought to be considered for further discussion-- Is letting impoverished people pick up discarded bottles and cans, cleaning your property for free, immoral?  (cans you would have just thrown away)

Deriving value from someone's labor without exchanging something happens constantly.  Burden of proof, man.  If you want to make a moral argument, you need more than that.


Mere excuses for theft.

Mere excuse for arbitrary abusive monopoly governments actions.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 02, 2010, 06:46:24 PM
Theres no such thing as bad publicity, except for the publicity you generate by criminalizing your fanbase.  
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 06:47:27 PM
Is watching broadcast TV immoral?

The terms of television shows are that you watch the commercials.

Hmm.  I don't remember signing that contract.  I don't feel obligated to, and usually don't.  I deliberately skip them using my DVR.  I must be acting immorally.   :roll:

DID I FUCKING SAY THAT YA FUCKING JACKASS?!?!

Debating the methods of distribution that an antiquated technology uses is irrelevant. I wasn't using *TERMS* in the goddamned legal sense. IF YOU FLICK A FUCKING TELEVISION ON, AND WATCH IT, THERE ARE COMMERCIALS. What you choose to do after it hits your cable/antenna isn't the point I was making.

Also, you are trying to evade the issue.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 06:53:14 PM
Theres no such thing as bad publicity, except for the publicity you generate by criminalizing your fanbase.  

I am not doing that. I am not supporting laws. I am not supporting anyone doing anything.

I'm not even saying what my own goddamned choices are in relation to distributing my own fucking shit. My stuff will be distributed in a way that *May* satisfuckingfy the cheap fuckers and still make me a buck.

Too many fucking conclusions being drawn from what I'm saying.

I AM SAYING: If someone makes something, and they say "Here is my art, these are my terms." then if you respect their art then you should respect their terms.

I don't understand why this is so fucking controversial.



Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: hellbilly on November 02, 2010, 07:26:19 PM
Theres no such thing as bad publicity, except for the publicity you generate by criminalizing your fanbase.  

I am not doing that. I am not supporting laws. I am not supporting anyone doing anything.

I'm not even saying what my own goddamned choices are in relation to distributing my own fucking shit. My stuff will be distributed in a way that *May* satisfuckingfy the cheap fuckers and still make me a buck.

Too many fucking conclusions being drawn from what I'm saying.

I AM SAYING: If someone makes something, and they say "Here is my art, these are my terms." then if you respect their art then you should respect their terms.

I don't understand why this is so fucking controversial.





I didn't read Drifter's comment as being aimed at you & I agree with your point of view.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 07:39:10 PM
Theres no such thing as bad publicity, except for the publicity you generate by criminalizing your fanbase.  

I am not doing that. I am not supporting laws. I am not supporting anyone doing anything.

I'm not even saying what my own goddamned choices are in relation to distributing my own fucking shit. My stuff will be distributed in a way that *May* satisfuckingfy the cheap fuckers and still make me a buck.

Too many fucking conclusions being drawn from what I'm saying.

I AM SAYING: If someone makes something, and they say "Here is my art, these are my terms." then if you respect their art then you should respect their terms.

I don't understand why this is so fucking controversial.





I didn't read Drifter's comment as being aimed at you & I agree with your point of view.

Sorry, D.

I can't believe how fucking angry this topic makes me.* I have to step back for a while.

Just to be clear, my original complaint at Dale I'm taking back, because he offered a "buy it" solution and I didn't realize it.

The rest of my rage is separate from that. Hope that's clear. I consider Dale a friend and I think he's a great guy.



*I am actually red faced right now and can hear blood moving through my ears.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 02, 2010, 08:04:45 PM
Theres no such thing as bad publicity, except for the publicity you generate by criminalizing your fanbase.  

I am not doing that. I am not supporting laws. I am not supporting anyone doing anything.

I'm not even saying what my own goddamned choices are in relation to distributing my own fucking shit. My stuff will be distributed in a way that *May* satisfuckingfy the cheap fuckers and still make me a buck.

Too many fucking conclusions being drawn from what I'm saying.

I AM SAYING: If someone makes something, and they say "Here is my art, these are my terms." then if you respect their art then you should respect their terms.

I don't understand why this is so fucking controversial.





I never said you were. 

I was just offering my edict from the papal window, to my flock.  Y'know.  Pontificating. 

Carry on.





Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: John Shaw on November 02, 2010, 08:07:17 PM
I never said you were. 

I was just offering my edict from the papal window, to my flock.  Y'know.  Pontificating. 

Carry on.

Double apologies. I'm wound up like a fucking cobra's tit right now for some reason. Prolly due to STRESS.

Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 02, 2010, 08:17:07 PM
I never said you were. 

I was just offering my edict from the papal window, to my flock.  Y'know.  Pontificating. 

Carry on.

Double apologies. I'm wound up like a fucking cobra's tit right now for some reason. Prolly due to STRESS.



Its okay, man. 

I've got the elections on.  Television.  Not worth pirating. 
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: dalebert on November 03, 2010, 02:27:30 AM
...deriving value from the product of someone else's labor without exchanging something in return.

...it is a moral argument

I gave a list of examples right off the top of my head that fit this statement, clearly demonstrating that someone benefiting from your labor does not necessarily equate to you being harmed.  That's the point.  The burden of proof for some violation of morality for the case you describe remains unsatisfied.  You say it's "obviously" different but you can't specify how it's different in a way that demonstrates harm to the creator.

You've implied before that such behavior may be rude, a claim with a much lighter burden of proof certainly than "immoral", but I disagree even with that claim.

I didn't want to see 2081 badly enough to pay $12 for it.  If it were feature-length, I probably would have wanted to own the DVD for my collection.  At 24 mins, I wouldn't even bother to go to the trouble to burn a copy to disk, much less pay $12 to own it.  Even when I watch a feature-length movie for free (Netflix, movie night, etc.), I often buy the DVD for my collection if I like it enough and can find it for a reasonable price.  I saw someone elses horrible quality "pirate" version of the latest Star Trek (video cam in the theater) but I liked it enough that it put me on the lookout for the official DVD at a reasonable price so I could watch it whenever the mood hits me and in much better quality.  Sure enough, I bought it.

Let's say for argument sake that creators somehow have complete control over who gets to enjoy their films.  Knowing that I will not pay the price they want, would they choose for me to not see it at all?  That means if someone asks me about it, instead of saying it was good and had some great libertarian themes, I'll just say I haven't seen it.  All I have to convey about the film is that I didn't value it enough to pay for it which isn't a great selling point to anyone who knows me and values my opinion, and they asked for it, after all.

Pirating Wide scale free proliferation increases profits for the creators of content.  An artist who wants people to do without even at the cost of harm to himself is being vindictive and irrational.  It's simply a bad business model, even if it were possible to control such proliferation (it's not, and it's just going to get harder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow)).  Such an attitude shrinks the proverbial resource pie.  It's an irrational claim that it's immoral for someone to gain value while causing no harm whatsoever to anyone.  This is deep-seated programmed thinking that has no logical foundation.  Don't cop out and claim it's obvious.  If it's logical, prove it.
Title: Re: Just read an awesome short story in my english class today.
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on November 03, 2010, 02:29:38 AM
Is watching broadcast TV immoral?

The terms of television shows are that you watch the commercials.

Hmm.  I don't remember signing that contract.  I don't feel obligated to, and usually don't.  I deliberately skip them using my DVR.  I must be acting immorally.   :roll:

DID I FUCKING SAY THAT YA FUCKING JACKASS?!?!

Debating the methods of distribution that an antiquated technology uses is irrelevant. I wasn't using *TERMS* in the goddamned legal sense. IF YOU FLICK A FUCKING TELEVISION ON, AND WATCH IT, THERE ARE COMMERCIALS. What you choose to do after it hits your cable/antenna isn't the point I was making.

Also, you are trying to evade the issue.

I think that's the way a normal fucking human being reads it.