If you download music/movies, do you ... *new: post 300 rant*

I wasn't really looking for a yes or no answer, but you know that.

The key here is to look at a personal benefit first, it is usually a good indicator of an immoral act.
So, stealing from a thief a copy of something that he has an unlimited supply of, you would not be deterring that thief from stealing again. What is worse, you still get the benefit. I see it as immoral. In short, the only reason you chose to steal from a thief is for personal gain (out of personal greed, because you didn't want to pay for the product), and theft is still theft.

What is the theft? If I buy Peter Frampton comes alive from the store, and put it
on my computer, then I copy that to my thumb drive and take it over to my friends
house and he the copies it to his HD, then puts it on his iPod, who's the thief?

If I am, then what is it that I stole? If it is my friend, what did he steal? I gave
him a chance to listen to a song that I bought anytime he wants. I don't buy
that it's stealing. That is why this debate and this thread will never end in a amicable
way. The basis of our individual beliefs are polarized. I on a very basic level do
not believe that it's stealing. I don't feel that I'm sneaking around, my benefit
is so minuscule as to not be a consideration to me. I find it convenient to buy
cds or buy songs through iTunes, but if I want a copy of One night in Bangkok
I sure as hell am not going to pay for it, I never have before, and I'll do without
if I had to put out any money, no matter how small.

Like has happened so many times in history, there is a paradigm shift in how
we obtain something. In this instance we are talking about music. It used to be
bards would play for free and hoping for donations. Later, only the wealthy had
the opportunity to hear the best music. In the 20's only wealthy people had
the means to buy records, and hear the musicians play live. Then music became
more easy to reproduce and distribute. Eventually there came a time when everyone
had the means to buy an album and play a record. The industry itself became
what it is, very powerful and greedy. Today technology has made it so that anyone
can get music. And no matter what side of the fence you're on, it's not going
away without some very scary Orwellian governmental oversight. So, just like
in all capitalist economies, the smart will survive and the powerful will either
smarten up or they will die like many that were to big to adapt. More and more
people listen to recorded music (now that you can carry 20,000 songs with you), or
pay for commercial free stations.

Maybe musicians will begin to play music for the music and not the fame, and
the record execs won't be as powerful (or may disappear), and we will get back
to music with thought and passion instead of what marketing psychologists figure
out we're going to want based on a focus group.

The arguments are played and inconsequential, the "new" way of thinking is here
and it's not going away.

I wasn't really looking for a yes or no answer, but you know that.

The key here is to look at a personal benefit first, it is usually a good indicator of an immoral act.
So, stealing from a thief a copy of something that he has an unlimited supply of, you would not be deterring that thief from stealing again. What is worse, you still get the benefit. I see it as immoral. In short, the only reason you chose to steal from a thief is for personal gain (out of personal greed, because you didn't want to pay for the product), and theft is still theft.

Which is why in your eyes, I'm an "Immoral" person, I understand that.

The concept though, that still seems to elude you however is that what an individual defines as moral/immoral is based on opinion and experience and is therefor different for EVERY individual.

If the above concept doesn't elude you, I'm curious as to why you started the thread in the first place as, unless it's simply a chance for you to get your soap-box-preaching fix of the day, this issue will always end in a stalemate with two (or more) sides constantly bickering, trying to justify their individual definitions of right and wrong.

So which is it? Are you trying to force your definition of morality down everyone's throat because you feel obligated to make the world a better place? or does the fact that morality is opinion based and everyone's opinion varies elude you? or (and in my mind probably the best fit) are you just trolling, because you're bored, and felt like adding another useless cluster of 1's and 0's to the already overflowing pile of useless sh*t on NBR?

theft is theft in the same sense that speeding makes you a criminal.

Which is why in your eyes, I'm an "Immoral" person, I understand that.

The concept though, that still seems to elude you however is that what an individual defines as moral/immoral is based on opinion and experience and is therefor different for EVERY individual.

If the above concept doesn't elude you, I'm curious as to why you started the thread in the first place as, unless it's simply a chance for you to get your soap-box-preaching fix of the day, this issue will always end in a stalemate with two (or more) sides constantly bickering, trying to justify their individual definitions of right and wrong.

So which is it? Are you trying to force your definition of morality down everyone's throat because you feel obligated to make the world a better place? or does the fact that morality is opinion based and everyone's opinion varies elude you? or (and in my mind probably the best fit) are you just trolling, because you're bored, and felt like adding another useless cluster of 1's and 0's to the already overflowing pile of useless sh*t on NBR?

What is moral is not different for every individual. It seems we have come full circle and started repeating arguments here.

http://bb.nsmb.com/showpost.php?p=2288671[HTML_REMOVED]postcount=97

This is a discussion board and this is hardly a subject where I get a lot of support. Why did I start it? I've answered that question in my reply to Andrew. Why do I continue to participate? For the very same reason you and others do, because this is a discussion. If you want to see a troll reply, try here:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showpost.php?p=2287967[HTML_REMOVED]postcount=15

Who pooped in your dinner? You sound angry, like I owe you something.

Bahahahahahahahaha

What is moral is not different for every individual. It seems we have come full circle and started repeating arguments here.

http://bb.nsmb.com/showpost.php?p=2288671[HTML_REMOVED]postcount=97

Oh FFS.

You know what your problem is Joe? It's that you take up a position and then argue it absolutely. Then you whine about people sniping at you as you continue to discount perfectly valid points of view.

Of course moralism is different for different people. And if you stop and think for a second, you'll get that.

Is abortion moral?
The catholic might say no. The atheist might say yes. Who's right, who's wrong… Each has his or her own definition of what is morally acceptable. That's shaped by your society, your belief system, your background and your history.

Is downloading music illegal? From what I read, not in Canada. Is it immoral? Not to me… not to thousands of others.

I've said it to you before - try having a discussion for a change.

Last year (and right now even) it is slow, not all HD and patchy in when/where you get it.

I'm talking near instant DL's, HD streaming with no lag time/stoppages in streaming etc.

In other words - a revolution!

hows that napster treatin ya.

Of course moralism is different for different people. And if you stop and think for a second, you'll get that.

Is abortion moral?
The catholic might say no. The atheist might say yes. Who's right, who's wrong… Each has his or her own definition of what is morally acceptable. That's shaped by your society, your belief system, your background and your history.

Is downloading music illegal? From what I read, not in Canada. Is it immoral? Not to me… not to thousands of others.

Quite honestly I'd like to think that you are about as wrong on this one as you can get CS. No offense bud, but you think that "each has his or her own definition of what is morally acceptable" and I think that just because some moral issues are harder to decide on, it does not mean that there is no right answer.

Morality is primarily concerned with avoiding and preventing harm. Years ago slavery was morally acceptable behavior. Please note that it was, it is and will always be morally wrong even if people back then did not know (or agree) that it was wrong. Click here for more.

If we were all free to chose our own definition of morality, I'd imagine that there would not be a single action that we wouldn't be able to justify. I bet bike thieves agree that it is OK to steal bikes. So, no… luckily morality is not defined differently by different groups. Groups may disagree and neither may know the right answer but it does not mean there is no right answer.

And lastly, please don't waste time responding with another post about my "problem" Dr. Phil ;) Don't make this personal, because it isn't.8)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/2219282175_83aa0cddec_b.jpg

Quite honestly I'd like to think that you are about as wrong on this one as you can get CS.

Morality is primarily concerned with avoiding and preventing harm. Years ago slavery was morally acceptable behavior. Please note that it was, it is and will always be morally wrong even if people back then did not know (or agree) that it was wrong. Click here for more.

If we were all free to chose our own definition of morality, I'd imagine that there would not be a single action that we wouldn't be able to justify. I bet bike thieves agree that it is OK to steal bikes. So, no… luckily morality is not defined differently by different groups. Groups may disagree and neither may know the right answer but it does not mean there is no right answer.

Actually Joe, the "harm" theory is but ONE of many methods for defining morality.

This is Wiki - but compared to the many courses I had the privilege (major e-sarc here) to take while obtaining my RMC engineering degree, it is pretty much bang on:

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.

This is one of the key aspects of any moral discussion, and one of the most frustrating. Depending on perspective, societal norms and the view point of the observer(s), the "morals" of any situation or decision can be argued about for months.

i.e. - you aren't right.

Quite honestly I'd like to think that you are about as wrong on this one as you can get CS. No offense bud, but you think that "each has his or her own definition of what is morally acceptable" and I think that just because some moral issues are harder to decide on, it does not mean that there is no right answer.

Morality is primarily concerned with avoiding and preventing harm. Years ago slavery was morally acceptable behavior. Please note that it was, it is and will always be morally wrong even if people back then did not know (or agree) that it was wrong. Click here for more.

If we were all free to chose our own definition of morality, I'd imagine that there would not be a single action that we wouldn't be able to justify. I bet bike thieves agree that it is OK to steal bikes. So, no… luckily morality is not defined differently by different groups. Groups may disagree and neither may know the right answer but it does not mean there is no right answer.

And lastly, please don't waste time responding with another post about my "problem" Dr. Phil ;) Don't make this personal, because it isn't.8)

shut up, just shut up.

[jka]Which reminds me. I remember reading about a time where some people would take things from other people without giving them anything in return. They would get them do do something - like say, pick cotton day after day, and not give them anything. Everyone was doing it, so it must have been legal.[/jka]

So a guy spends a year working on an album - maybe puts in a couple thousand hours of work and bit of money.

He finally puts the album for sale, and one copy is sold at $14. The purchaser rips the CD and uploads it to peer servers where millions of people download it for no charge.

Sounds pefectly legal, and fair, to me…

im pretty sure a musician doesnt necessarily deserve to make 100 times more money in a year then someone building their house for them. but hey thats just my opinion…