Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown
- Thread starter KCVILLIAN
- Start date
hmm, i replied as i did because of this fact that you think his/her statement somehow can only allude to there being a difference of who steals from who or who gets stolen from while i came to no such conclusion at all.
so i continue to see that your question wasnt related and i ask you once again, where did smile hint at any of what you are presuming?
please help me connect the dots.
n what im trying to understand is where did u get such a contradiction from smiles statement? all smile had done is decried equiable enforcement as a whole. The rest is of your own making.
i have no problem with your original question, nor your follow up question asking smile not to dodge the answer, as if he/she needs to back up a statement made or somethin.
I jumped in and asked you a question because your own question seemed very out of the blue and unfounded, and it still does.
so i continue to see that your question wasnt related and i ask you once again, where did smile hint at any of what you are presuming?
please help me connect the dots.
n what im trying to understand is where did u get such a contradiction from smiles statement? all smile had done is decried equiable enforcement as a whole. The rest is of your own making.
i have no problem with your original question, nor your follow up question asking smile not to dodge the answer, as if he/she needs to back up a statement made or somethin.
I jumped in and asked you a question because your own question seemed very out of the blue and unfounded, and it still does.
That is the amazing thing about perception, each of us has our own. You didn't come to that conclusion, I did.
Smile hinted at it by qualifying the people being stolen from as "already rich". If he/she didn't believe that qualification had an impact on the scenario it would not have been mentioned.
Since it was mentioned, it must have some impact on his/her perception of the situation.
Yes it is of my own making of my perception of Smile's previous posting nature, and the seemingly contradictory sentiment in the post under question.
Fair enough, however, even operating under the assumption (which I'm not) that my question was in fact out of the blue, why couldn't he/she still answer it?
Do all questions need to be found related by all parties before they can be considered to be answered?
The question was and still is relevant to me. My perception of Smile is that he/she has a concept of justice that operates on a sliding scale.
My question was an attempt to better understand that perception and it still stands unanswered.
Smile hinted at it by qualifying the people being stolen from as "already rich". If he/she didn't believe that qualification had an impact on the scenario it would not have been mentioned.
Since it was mentioned, it must have some impact on his/her perception of the situation.
Yes it is of my own making of my perception of Smile's previous posting nature, and the seemingly contradictory sentiment in the post under question.
Fair enough, however, even operating under the assumption (which I'm not) that my question was in fact out of the blue, why couldn't he/she still answer it?
Do all questions need to be found related by all parties before they can be considered to be answered?
The question was and still is relevant to me. My perception of Smile is that he/she has a concept of justice that operates on a sliding scale.
My question was an attempt to better understand that perception and it still stands unanswered.
dude i know that this is your perception and im not saying its invalid im just trying to see for myself where the fuck did it come from. Ill continue reading cuz maybe that will be answered after further reading.
smiles reply seemed sarcastic to say the least.
I can see where you start to make your assumptions but i still dont see where you come up with "he/she favors stealing from the rich while rejects stealing from the poor" when his/her statement was nothing but a disapproval of the system, as are all past statements made by him/her.
see smile having said to have anarchistic philosophies, I, having the same, instead interpretted his/her statement of "sure.. we shouldnt do piracy so the rich can keep gettin richer" (obviously paraphrased) as having nothing to do with piracy and instead with a disapproval of something deeper, an unjust social system (others like to think of it as an economic system tho, for some reason) and the absurdity of its priorities and ambitions/inhibitions.
lol no dude thats not what im saying.
The question can always be asked, i was just wondering at what "wide angled perspective" spawned such a question in the first place, since i had no similarities with such a point of view that required the need for such a question.
To me it seems like a lot of it comes simply from what is perceived as its dual nature of "one loves x so one must hate y" while such dual perspectives only have a place in the subject who in this case is posing the question.
I cant hate on that. One of the questions i ask people new to my life that tends to fill me in on their core beliefs are "are u going to heaven? am I?" .
So i agree that the question posed will always be a valid one, i just didnt know where what angle the question spawned from but like you said, this is your perception on the matter and we both know subjective perceptions say more about ones own reality than about anothers, and in this case in my perspective, the conditions that allowed your question to come forth were simply of your own conditioned reality rather than anything mentioned by smile.
smiles reply seemed sarcastic to say the least.
I can see where you start to make your assumptions but i still dont see where you come up with "he/she favors stealing from the rich while rejects stealing from the poor" when his/her statement was nothing but a disapproval of the system, as are all past statements made by him/her.
see smile having said to have anarchistic philosophies, I, having the same, instead interpretted his/her statement of "sure.. we shouldnt do piracy so the rich can keep gettin richer" (obviously paraphrased) as having nothing to do with piracy and instead with a disapproval of something deeper, an unjust social system (others like to think of it as an economic system tho, for some reason) and the absurdity of its priorities and ambitions/inhibitions.
lol no dude thats not what im saying.
The question can always be asked, i was just wondering at what "wide angled perspective" spawned such a question in the first place, since i had no similarities with such a point of view that required the need for such a question.
To me it seems like a lot of it comes simply from what is perceived as its dual nature of "one loves x so one must hate y" while such dual perspectives only have a place in the subject who in this case is posing the question.
I cant hate on that. One of the questions i ask people new to my life that tends to fill me in on their core beliefs are "are u going to heaven? am I?" .
So i agree that the question posed will always be a valid one, i just didnt know where what angle the question spawned from but like you said, this is your perception on the matter and we both know subjective perceptions say more about ones own reality than about anothers, and in this case in my perspective, the conditions that allowed your question to come forth were simply of your own conditioned reality rather than anything mentioned by smile.
Well then he should have said that, but his reluctance to answer the question would lead me to believe that he was more concerned about his ability to answer the question than the relevance of the question itself.
And once again, considering he/she qualified the individual as "already rich" the question still was relevant.
To be honest, no I don't think it was loaded because I didn't presuppose anything, Smile simply could have answered yes or no, and my question was based on my perception of Smile's ideology and not some straw man arguement.
If I had trapped Smile with a question that he/she could not answer, then I would agree.
Further, the question is at the heart of the debate about the increasingly studied sociological phenomenon in which people seem to view the "wrongness" of stealing in degrees based on the size and distance of the organization/person.
If my question is "irrelevant, unfounded, whatever" then someone needs to explain to me why the individual in the original statement was qualified as "already rich"?
And once again, considering he/she qualified the individual as "already rich" the question still was relevant.
To be honest, no I don't think it was loaded because I didn't presuppose anything, Smile simply could have answered yes or no, and my question was based on my perception of Smile's ideology and not some straw man arguement.
If I had trapped Smile with a question that he/she could not answer, then I would agree.
Further, the question is at the heart of the debate about the increasingly studied sociological phenomenon in which people seem to view the "wrongness" of stealing in degrees based on the size and distance of the organization/person.
If my question is "irrelevant, unfounded, whatever" then someone needs to explain to me why the individual in the original statement was qualified as "already rich"?
Its as simple as what I value as necessary and unnecessary. Do I see the use of already corrupt social systems and economic systems as fair to the people? No. Do I see already incredibly rich individuals actually losing any part of life due to this change in how people share information? No.
This is subjective to how I have lived my life as a person, and I do have anarchist beliefs that sets me free mentally from any structured set of life that are constantly enforced. I do not belief any laws should be enforced on anyone in any setting. This makes your entire question null and void from answering.
Assuming will be your downfall if you don't stop.
This is subjective to how I have lived my life as a person, and I do have anarchist beliefs that sets me free mentally from any structured set of life that are constantly enforced. I do not belief any laws should be enforced on anyone in any setting. This makes your entire question null and void from answering.
Assuming will be your downfall if you don't stop.
Getting stolen from is only a matter of what needs to be done in order to keep shit balanced. Why do we have many things that others don't in the first place?
I've gotten stolen from, I've stole from others, but this is all part of the change. Organized groups of people only do this because people on an individual basis do it.
I've gotten stolen from, I've stole from others, but this is all part of the change. Organized groups of people only do this because people on an individual basis do it.
blah blah blah! it is inevitable that the current business model will change. I really dont care what happens to the RIAA or MPAA, if they dont embrace it they will go away. In this day of age with computers and the internet things are changing at a rapid pace its really hard to say whats going to happen with music and movies 10 years from now, but i'm optimistic about it.
So people can't always be or do what they want. That's life. To use that to justify internet piracy or to criticize laws intended to curb it is ridiculous to me.
If you're whole mentality is "do what thou will" and think that should be society, that's one thing.
But the thing is Obama ran as a Democratic. He didn't run as a socialist, communist, anarchist, whatever. So I don't see the criticism as being warranted when every single decision he makes is probably based around living in a capitalist country.
If whatever actions the administration is taking are a detriment to the country, then I agree with the criticism.
But not if it's based around "It's not music if they're doing it for money" or "the musicians and CEO's are already rich."
I agree with this.
Maybe had the music companies started the itunes/amazon downloads earlier more people would have been accustomed to downloading legally instead of illegally.
Also, a lot of people need to think more deeply about the control that Hollywood has had over the American culture for the past 60-70 years. Why do you think it took so long for people to start accepting integration? Because people only saw white people together in a classroom or workplace on t.v. or in the movies. Even music was racially segregated. This is just one example of how bad 'habits' and degrading ideas have been consistently tearing down the American people (and the entire world since American movies and music have been the dominating influence globally).
Making these forms of entertainment easier to access, can account for people caring less about the mundane messages of racism/sexism/etc. in them. Its not like someone paid their hard earned money in order to get to experience propaganda, they paid nothing, so therefore it holds less importance overall.
If you just watch children, you will realize that the most accessible things are the most broken/abused things. I'm ready for the playing field for racist ideas to be broken completely.
Making these forms of entertainment easier to access, can account for people caring less about the mundane messages of racism/sexism/etc. in them. Its not like someone paid their hard earned money in order to get to experience propaganda, they paid nothing, so therefore it holds less importance overall.
If you just watch children, you will realize that the most accessible things are the most broken/abused things. I'm ready for the playing field for racist ideas to be broken completely.
I don't know how sympathetic or unsympathetic I should be towards the RIAA. I don't know much about them except that they tried to fuck with the radio stations not too long ago and that a jury granted them the ability to continue taking the same amount of money for artists for production costs, despite additional new revenue from legal downloading of albums. Something like that, if not exactly. I agreed with your previous posts about how the RIAA would have been better off getting involved with the apple/amazon business models.
However, I'm not sympathetic towards people bootlegging shit and then crying when they get caught. This whole sense of entitlement the country has is ridiculous to me.
However, I'm not sympathetic towards people bootlegging shit and then crying when they get caught. This whole sense of entitlement the country has is ridiculous to me.
