quote:There is no external, unchangeable concept of stealing.
If it is true that stealing is just whatever we use the term as, then the majority could easily prevent file sharing from being stealing by simply not using the term "stealing" in that manner. We could literally redefine all stealing out of existence by using words differently. Do you see the problem with this notion?
Unless you truly believe we could use that loophole to make stealing not stealing, we are talking about something more than just however the majority has arbitrarily decided to use the term, "stealing". We are talking about the concept of stealing, that the word refers to, and which other words could just as easily refer to if we decided to change the meaning of the words we use.
quote:How do you prove that something is stealing except by appealing to speakers' definition of what stealing is?
I suspect definitions are among the many many things that cannot be proven with certainty. You can only argue towards one definition or another - by showing how things that seem to be or seem to not be stealing would be inconsistent with a given definition. For instance, if the proposed definition is that stealing includes deriving benefits from someone without compensating them, you could use checking books out at a library as a counterexample that is inconsistent with that definition. This example would prove nothing absolutely, but it would make people chose between rejecting the proposed definition and accepting that borrowing library books is theft.
Besides, don't you think people can be mistaken in their definition of stealing?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suspect definitions are among the many many things that cannot be proved with certainty
This is the single largest reason most discussions with you devolve into mental masturbation.
I hope you find some release in it, it usually just leaves me feeling unfulfilled.
Most people have no problem having a discussion with words that we understand in a common manner, but not you. . to you they are unknowable.
Define it however you want, it doesn't change the reality of the actions, no matter how you try to spin it. Words exist to describe things that already exist, at least in most cases....changing the word doesn't usually change the actions themselves, so you can't just change the word then claim the action doesn't exist anymore.
That would be like calling a job at McDonalds an assembly job because you are assembling the burgers...it is sophistry, no more. Just because you assign it a name that doesn't fit doesn't mean there are any more production jobs, it just means you got one over, you lied without getting caught.
The word isn't the problem, Tres, it is the action the word describes that causes the problem.
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long while, Tres....and that is saying a lot.
I know you weren't advocating FOR it, but the very fact that you would try to use it as an example shows why it doesn't pay to try to argue with you...you just try to change the definitions midstream at every chance...
Then claim to have "proved" your point.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note once again that you were the one who posted a dictionary definition to try and redefine "stealing". It's on the previous page, halfway up. (I haven't offered any definition of the term at all.) So, don't try to claim we all agree on "common definitions", or that you aren't just as interested as I am in coming to a correct definition for the sake of this discussion.
And yes, I definitely find a lot of benefits in questioning the commonly accepted assumptions about what words and concepts mean. For starters, it helps if you approach it as critical thinking, rather than "mental masturbation", despite the similarity of the two.
quote:Define it however you want, it doesn't change the reality of the actions, no matter how you try to spin it. Words exist to describe things that already exist, at least in most cases....changing the word doesn't usually change the actions themselves, so you can't just change the word then claim the action doesn't exist anymore.
Yes! We are not arguing about words or common uses of terms like "stealing" - we are discussing the thing that the word "stealing" refers to, the concept of stealing, and the actions that fit that concept.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depending on the advance, and the contract. Low sales are definitely bad for the artist, I won't even try to deny that. But I think any musician with half a brain sees that the exposure is priceless. As long as people are listening to your music you're in their consciousness a lot more than you would be without filesharing. This is why a lot of indies are releasing whole albums free for download on the web. For the exposure. But I think making downloading your only method of obtaining music is a very bad idea. Support the people you like, so they can keep making good music.
Same with authors and software developers. I read the first chapter in Barnes and Noble, and I'll borrow someone else's games, but if I like them I'll buy them. That's only fair.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, of COURSE it depends on the advance and the contract...but 500,000 is the average number, as I said. Which is pretty sad, really. But the point was that selling 50 million albums without seeing a penny of the money is...er...very unusual.
I have no problem with downloading albums that have been released for download. A lot of bands do make their songs available on the Internet. But for those who don't...
posted
So when I give a definition I think is good but you don't, it's "redefining" just for the sake of argument... yet when you give a definition you think is good but I don't, it's "an accepted form of the word"?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering I have rarely, if ever, seen you redefine a word in a manner that anyone else here agrees with, yes.
Seriously, this particular argument seems to be what the definition of stealing should be, but opther "redefinitions" in other arguments have been absurd.
I ahve seen you jump into a conversation, on more than one accasion, and attempt to redefine terms that everyone else had completely understood for three full pages before you chimed in...and after two more pages of semantics you were the only one who agreed with you redefiniton of it.
I am citing proof that others, including the legal system, have considered my definition of the wordcorrect, particularily in common usage. You are attempting to deny the validity of teh word by claiming it only applies to physical goods, adn refuted that by showing that it has been defined in the past as more than that.
Also, the definition I use is common usage, whereas yours is a personal choice.
Go argue your case in front of a judge, or an English teacher, or any number of people who use the word stealing every day in the course of their job, and most (if not all) would not agree with your definition, or the logic behind it.
There are tons of examples, so of which have already been given here, which refute your definition.
posted
I would also state that you seem to think that you are an authority on what words SHOULD mean, rather than what accepted authorities on the English language says they DO mean...
I didn't make that definition up myself, you know.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the definition I use is common usage, whereas yours is a personal choice.
I have not given ANY definition of stealing yet in this thread - so I'm not sure what definition you are assigning to me. If I had to define it, I would say it is "Wrongfully depriving someone of their property", which I think most judges, English teachers, and people in general would agree with. When I say filesharing is not stealing, I'm talking about the same stealing you are.
And your definition of it, if it is any different than mine, is no less a personal choice.
quote:I would also state that you seem to think that you are an authority on what words SHOULD mean, rather than what accepted authorities on the English language says they DO mean...
I've never claimed to be an authority. I only expect you to believe me as far as my arguments can show I am right. Similarly, I don't care if you make up your definitions yourself or take them from dictionaries - as long as you can justify them if others disagree, it makes no difference. But quoting a dictionary no more shows by itself that a given definition of stealing is accurate than quoting a Bible verse shows that homosexuality is wrongful.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I really don't see where you're going with the whole Platonic forms thing. But I think you're way off with your assessment of dictionaries. Dictionaries capture the way people use words. If you look up the definition of "steal" in the dictionary, you can be pretty confident that the definitions you find in there are a reflection of how everyone uses the word. The Bible is not a descriptive reference guide like a dictionary is, so your analogy does not hold.
Also, I'd wager that a more common definition of "steal" would be something like "to take something that doesn't rightfully belong to you." If you don't trust dictionaries, we could do a poll here to see which one people find more accurate and common.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continue to think debates on definitions of words and "concepts" add little value to an understanding of copyright infringement. Using "theft" or "stealing" as an identity for copyright infringement, despite agreeing in some part with colloquial definition, serves only to confuse the issue. The differences are extremely significant, and it is in the differences most of the important aspects of copyright are contained, not in the similarities.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, Tres doesn't think copyright infringement is as harmful as theft (neither do I; I think that position is ludicrous).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I didn't start the semantic discussion - I joined in towards the end. And I was more concerned with the idea that dictionaries can dictate right from wrong - which is a separate related issue, that I thought was important to point out. On that note..
quote:Tres, I really don't see where you're going with the whole Platonic forms thing. But I think you're way off with your assessment of dictionaries. Dictionaries capture the way people use words.
I agree that dictionaries capture the way people use words. But the way people use words is pretty much arbitrary and unrelated to the real issue of whether or not filesharing is wrong. You can change the meaning of the word simply by using it differently, but that will not change the reality of whether or not filesharing is wrong.
Hence when I say "Is filesharing stealing" I am not asking just about how people use certain vocabulary. Rather, I am asking about whether the particular concept of filesharing we are discussing would fit the characteristics of the particular concept of stealing we are talking about in this particular discussion.
It's a question about the reality of filesharing and stealing, not a question about how people use words. Thus, a dictionary that tells how people use words should not be an authority on the answer.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to download anime, music and other things, so my question is. Is Limewire the best program to use? Does it have alot of spyware and other virues? If Limewire is not the best, then what should I use?
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
