Dragonball & YouTube

[desirecampbell]

Desire, it doesn't matter if you think some laws are unjust. If you reside in a country, you are obligated to follow those laws, period.

Actually, some laws are unjust. Unjust laws are not to be followed. I don't want to equate file sharing to Black civil rights, but, laws are not infallible. If a law is unjust you have the right, and the responsibility, to confront and disobey that law.

Opinions mean very little, everyone has one. Things aren't so abstract that all opinions are equal. I mean this in a general sense, and not to this topic specifically. I hate seeing a general trend in society these days to accept every viewpoint, and see all opinions as equal, no matter what.

Well, in a democratic society, all opinions are supposed to be treated equally. That's not to say that all opinions are right, or that the idea of 'just' and 'unjust' is merely a popularity contest - but it's important to remember that all opinions are worth the same. Your opinion is worth the same as min, the same as Mike's, and the same as Hitler's. Some of these opinions might be logically flawed, but they're all worth the same.

On this matter specifically, it is against the law in the United States. A law which has been put in place by elected leaders chose by the majority of the people. Therefore, it is what the majority of people agree to is right or wrong on an issue.

That brings up an interesting point. We have elected officials because they are meant to represent the best interests of all the people they represent. Not the majority, not just those that vote for them. I feel like a jerk bringing up the American Civil Rights Movement again but... the majority was happy with Blacks being treated unjustly - that didn't make the laws right.

Here it is wrong to steal the work of others.

Well, "steal" is not the proper word to use in this instance. People aren't 'stealing' anything. The only law that's being broken is 'copyright infringement' and even that law is being used well outside of what it is intended for. The same laws that make it illegal to share music online make it illegal for you to watch a video with your friends.

Therefore, there are no excuses or explanations to be made.

There are always some, they just might not be as logically sound as others.

Any opinion that tries to make a case for why they "think" it should be any other way than the the way the law dictates is wrong, bottom line.

You're starting to sound like you believe that all opinions that are different from yours are "wrong", intrinsically. Not because you've shown that, factually, your ideas are more sound, but simply because they're 'your ideas'. This is a very unlikeable way of thinking. I hope I am simply reading your post wrong.

I am not saying you advocate piracy,

You'll not that I always put 'piracy' into quotes. The idea of what is 'piracy' is flimsy and, in my view, flawed. I have, and still do, advocate the free exchange of everything. This probably stems from my youth and inexperience - I don't have any real grasp of 'yours' and 'mine' separations. I only see 'what I've created and what to share with the world' and 'what others have created and what to share with the world'.

nor am I getting that from your post. I am merely saying that the "All opinions are equal and valid" idea is a fallacy

Yes, you seem to be of the train of thought that your opinions are more valid than all others. That is a logical fallacy. Remember, 'facts' are not opinions. Facts are true, intrinsically - they are or aren't, there is no middle ground, no discussion. 'Morality' is not a fact, it is an opinion.

that is being taught to everyone in schools these days and it is ruining a lot of minds.

I see it taught less and less these days - used to be 'the big thing' in ancient Greece.

That is not to say I think you are like that. Quite the opposite is the case. You are an intelligent person, who always has interesting things to say, and solid, well thought out points to make.

I try but I fear that I'm taking too much of one side in this discussion. I want to try and walk the middle ground here, but I see noone bringing up any pro-'piracy' points. (Victator Supreme is not helping :rolleyes: )

I have a personal dislike for the Opinions are all valid and equal argument, and I try to combat it whenever I see it.

Heh. But the only other ideas are that 'a personal belief is more valid than others' and 'ThisGuy's opinions are more valid than all others'. If you advocate the former, than if you convince someone - you really shouldn't have And if you believe the latter, then you believe yourself superior to everyone else - and that's a bit off-putting.

I just don't want to see people use that as an answer to anything in life. To me, a qualified opinion is one that has facts of some kind to back it up.

Ah, but there's a difference between an opinion's worth and its truthfulness. Your opinions are no more or less valid than mine - but that doesn't factor into it's truthfulness at all. Especially in this context: is it "wrong" to share something with another person? You would almost certainly say 'no'. This question is the basis of 'piracy'. Sharing. If I make a copy of something I own, and give it to you, am I doing something immoral? If you answer 'yes', I'd really like to know why.

If two rivaling opinions both have facts to back them up, then and only then, are they both valid and equal.

Again, I'd like to point out the difference between 'truth' and 'validity'. All people's opinions are valid, that is, all people should be treated with the same respect as all others - all people have ideas and opinions and they should all be treated equally. "Being treated equally" doesn't mean 'everyone is right', it means 'everyone's assumed to be non-insane, and nothing they say is taken as true without factual backup'. Everyone's opinions are worth the same, but the truth is worth more than all opinions combined.

Otherwise it is just a blanket statement that allows too many variables into a situation that need not be there.

Heh, noone said philosophy was easy. This isn't science. If you believe that laws should reflect morality (as opposed to laws being in place simply to help society function, ála Kissinger) than laws must be based in logical argument.

Don't take this response too personal.

I can't help but do so - but I know that's probably just my inability to capture tone properly. Likewise, I'm not trying to insult you (though it may appear so, sorry), but I'll pull no punches with my retorts, and I hope I can expect the same from you.

I started out responding to what you said, but it transformed into a more generalized statement and viewpoint on a broader subject. It is, in closing, hopefully an eye opener to anyone who takes the time to read it. I hope it encourages people to strengthen their own opinions before presenting them, and that includes me too. I am far from infallible, I often let my thoughts on a situation or subject take precedent over the evidence around me. So it is just as applicable to me as it is to you and everyone else.

Likewise, I hope that you (and other's of similar mind) see that you may inadvertently be neglecting the opposite side in this discussion. I'm sure you don't consciously think that you are better than everyone else - but that's what your explanation of your beliefs says. If an opinion is so easy to state as correct, than you should be able to take the other side's ideas as well. Playing the devil's advocate is important, it's wrong (morally defunct) to simply state one side's argument and neglect the other. It is a stagnation of collaborative thought and is, as many believe, the absolute worst thing that could ever infect society.


--------------------------


My problem with your post is that you keep saying an opinion is only worth as much as the facts that back it up. And you didn't actually back up your opinions with any facts, or logical points. So, um. What's the deal? As it stands now, I've asked some (I think) interesting questions on the idea of 'piracy' and noone has given any counter-arguments. As it stands, 'piracy' is winning.


So, what are the 'pro-share', 'anti-share' logical points anyway? (Here I use the term 'share', which may seem biased and misleading, but is the most accurate term. 'Piracy' is far too loaded a term, and is inaccurate.) Well, there are many good ones on each side. But most of these are 'structural' or 'statistical' points. The more people that get it free, the less people that will go out and buy it - the more people that are exposed to it, the more that might buy it... But what I want to focus on are the moral points. Why is is 'wrong' to download these things? The 'pro-share' argument is 'sharing is a good thing'. I don't know what the 'anti-share' response to that is.

So I ask you: "When is sharing wrong?"

[MajinMetroid]

One point that I think needs to be made is the idea of "anonymity of art." At least I think that's the right term. The main idea behind it is that once an artist paints a picture, or records a song or draws a chapter of manga, it no longer belongs to him or her, it belongs to everyone.

I don't believe a person can own a thought or experience. Aka, raw video, text and audio as they exist within a computer. They aren't tangible. As long as distribution is free, sharing of anything obtained in these arenas is the right of everyone, in my opinion.

It's once a person takes something made by someone else, copies it to a tangible medium (CD/DVD/paper) and sells it for more than the price of blank pages, CDs or DVDs, aka makes a profit, then that is what I'd define as piracy.

Broadband internet has enabled massive distribution at nearly no price to the distributers and consumers, thanks to torrents. I think that this is cause for producers to come up with different business models rather than try and combat what's happening, trying to stop it because that's never going to happen unless they shut the internet down. They shut Napster down and what happened? Three more heads sprouted up, like a hydra. KaZaA, Morpheus and Limewire and they didn't just deal with music, they dealt with all types of files.

It kind of harkens back to prohibition of alcohol. Making it illegal just forces people to find new ways to get around the law. Finding some way to legalize it and still let the producers make their fair share of profit off their production is what I think needs to be done.

Times are changing and so should copyright law, in my opinion.

[Victator Supreme]

What? Statistics are huge assumptions and your random thoughts are fact?

The only facts in this thread are downloading movies is illegal in the United States. Thats it, you saying that 300,000 would have bought Naruto dvds if they hadnt downloaded them is not.

There is a good moral argument against downloading, but nobody in this thread has made it.

[Godo]

Hmm...heated discussion. I love it.

[personal view]
When I an going to buy something, I want a preview. Of the whole thing.
As an example. You've got a chocolate bar. There is no expiring date written on it. So, would you like to see just a piece of it or the whole chocolate bar? The whole of course because of that the piece you see may be looking good, but the rest of the chocolate bar has started to "rot". That's why I think that downloading on the net is not a bad thing. You download it, you watch it and if you like it you should buy it.
As an example, I have watched the Dragonball anime, but it sucked in comparision to the manga. I wouldn't sit and watch it just like that. But on the other hand, I really like the manga, so I own all the volumes!

So it's up to the producers to produce something good. I don't want to pay 10 dollars for a DVD that sucks. I don't have that money, I am a poor student. I want to pay for a movie that's great, and great movies you see over and over again, so you buy them.

If I make a painting I want get paid for it. If it is popular, people want to buy it! If it ain't, people don't! Easy! So I learn and make a better painting!

That's it! [/personal view]

[Bardock the Mexican]

I wouldn't. It has too much of a 'classroom snich telling on Dick and Jane for smooching in the cloakroom' look and feel to it. I really don't care that some movies and episodes ended up there. There is even Spanish episodes there and nobody I know complains to the authorities.

[Maphisto86]

Oh man, this makes me feel like the guiltiest person in the world because I just spent 5 hours straight on You Tube watching all those episodes from the 22nd tournament arc that I missed out on. I really do believe that it's wrong but I suppose the difference between me and perhaps many other viewers out there is that I have every intention of purchasing the DVDs for those episodes eventually since the quality on You Tube isn't anywhere near satisfying enough for me, and I've already poured plenty of money into the Dragonball fund. ....At least, that's what I'll say to console myself right now. Forgiveth me!!

Ditto... Iv'e watched episodes of Dragonball too on Youtube... Still with Funimation FINALLY releasing huge season set DVD's of all three seasons with bilingual sound options I can finally buy the ones I want.

P.S. In a nutshell it is illegal and immoral to post full episodes on Youtube. I'm surprised this thread hasen't been closed yet...

[Magica]

I'm surprised this thread hasen't been closed yet...

If people wouldn't quit fighting like little brats, it might. Fuckers.

[Mr.Piccolo]

I'm surprised this thread hasen't been closed yet...

If people wouldn't quit fighting like little brats, it might. Fuckers.

Its not like people should get so hostile over this. It is just a thread. I think its point was to have people share their opinions on this matter, not to cause more problems.

[desirecampbell]

I'm surprised this thread hasen't been closed yet...

If people wouldn't quit fighting like little brats, it might. Fuckers.

most people are just throwing out 'their 2 cents' without reading the rest of the thread, which doesn't really matter because there are few posts that try and further discussion. I've posted some considerations, and a final (simple) question. There have been no replies.

EX gave his blessings for the discussion, but noone seems interested. They all just seem to say what they want and ignore any other opinions.

[future_trunks]

I really don't care. Toei isn't going to fire people because somebody watched Plan to eradicate the saiyans on Youtube.

Uh, yea they could. Look at this way, if more and more people download illegaly, then they lose money. If they lose money, they cant afford to pay their workers. Then they will have to fire some people, and those people most likely will be the people who need the money more than anything.

I suggest you think about those people before you say something like that again.

[desirecampbell]

Uh, yea they could. Look at this way, if more and more people download illegaly, then they lose money. If they lose money, they cant afford to pay their workers. Then they will have to fire some people, and those people most likely will be the people who need the money more than anything.

I suggest you think about those people before you say something like that again.

Or, summed up:

1. if more and more people download illegaly(sic), then they lose money.
2. If they lose money, they cant afford to pay their workers.
3. [If they can't afford to pay their workers, t]hen they will have to fire some people.

I know you mean well, but this is not a solid argument, on two grounds.

First, you're not using the proper terms, and a bit of logical fallacy. You are saying, in no uncertain terms, that downloading a video causes Funimation to lose money. When people download videos - no one 'loses' money, they simply don't gain any. Downloading a video doesn't cause a decrease in Funimation revenue. Funimation 'loses' money when they make DVDs, they 'gain' money when people buy them. If I don't buy a DVD, then I'm 'taking away' as much from Funimation as anyone who's never heard of Dragonball at all.

Furthermore, your assertion that a failing product line will cause Funimation to lay off employees is not a solid argument either (it's almost an appeal to pity). Even if it were true (which it isn't) that's still no reason to go out and buy the DVDs. In a capitalist system, you are not supposed to buy things to allow people to continue making them - that is a consequence of buying the product. You buy a product because you want it. The people who produce items noone wants, go out of business. If you believe we should buy the DVDs so that some people don't lose their jobs, then I'd like to inform you that I have a job selling volcano insurance. If you don't buy it, I'll lose my job!

Again, no one has yet answered my question: "When is sharing wrong?"

[VegettoEX]

Again, no one has yet answered my question: "When is sharing wrong?"

When you loan a gun to a mentally disturbed friend and he shoots every kitty in the neighborhood.

Anyway, desirecampbell, I totally get a lot of what you're saying, but you really seem to be coming from a very blind and naive standpoint. Not that it's a bad thing or should be changed, but that's just how it appears to be. There's definitely something to be said for potential gains/profits and things that may or may not intentionally or inadvertently cause that "loss".

To those who are so pro-"sharing" and such, I'm just curious... do you have a job? How many jobs have you had? What types of jobs are they? Do you create things for profit? Do you provide a service for profit? How old are you? Do you live with your parents? Do you live with anyone else?

I'm just kinda skimming, but I wanted to toss that out there.

[desirecampbell]

Anyway, desirecampbell, I totally get a lot of what you're saying, but you really seem to be coming from a very blind and naive standpoint. Not that it's a bad thing or should be changed, but that's just how it appears to be.

I'll be the first to admit my naivety - I'm twenty years old: I don't know shit about shit, I've barely been out of my province. I'm not here to lend the opinion of worldly experience - hell, I'm not even here to give the opinion of youthful naivety - I'm here to give my opinion. I speak for noone but myself.

There's definitely something to be said for potential gains/profits and things that may or may not intentionally or inadvertently cause that "loss".

I'm just very adverse to people directly linking A to B. A may often lead to AA, which then will create B - and that is a valid argument - but saying "A causes B" is false, and using such fallacies undermines the entire argument.

To those who are so pro-"sharing" and such, I'm just curious... do you have a job? How many jobs have you had? What types of jobs are they? Do you create things for profit? Do you provide a service for profit? How old are you? Do you live with your parents? Do you live with anyone else?

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I work "minimum wage" and I've held some internships. I, personally, don't create or provide anything for profit (I don't even formally copyright anything) though I have helped others in their efforts to do so. I'm 20 years old, in University, on campus with a roommate.

[Super Sonic]

Though I admit to watching a few anime that aired on Nickelodeon in the 1980s and 90s on there, it's different as DBZ is readily available. Wouldn't watch DBZ on there for the moral and legal reasons.

[Victator Supreme]

To those who are so pro-"sharing" and such, I'm just curious... do you have a job? How many jobs have you had? What types of jobs are they? Do you create things for profit? Do you provide a service for profit? How old are you? Do you live with your parents? Do you live with anyone else?

I've never held any job before my current one. Aside from that, I have to take care of my mother. I've never created anything for profit. I have a few things in the fire, but nothing I think will make any decent money.

[wannywan]

Companies forecast profits all the time, it's what they base their outgoings on, hell, I do it myself for my company and I've been stung when the actual profits/figures don't meet with the forecasts to a desirable standard.

In a DBZ/companywhoownstherightstosomethingandistryingtosellit context, someone - somewhere will suffer if their profitable product fails to meet an even conservative estimate of what it will make.

All in all, if there was no youtube/viral/freeloading site on the net showing copyrighted material at all, DVD sales would be considerably more profitable for companies affected by this.

EDIT: Yes, I know my sig links to youtube....

[Akira]

Desire, I appreciate your polite candor and non-provoking responses, and hope to reciprocate in the same manner. Your debating skills are very well developed in some ways, and I respect that in you. I will now address a few points in return to your last post directed my way.

First and foremost, what I said applies to me just as much if not moreso than anyone else. Opinions are based off of life experiences, personal beliefs, outside influences, and individual personality. I for one do not think my own opinion / way of thinking is superior to anyone else. You are right in saying they are all equal in the sense that everyone has the right to thier own. On that level, I will come to an agreement with you.

However, that does not make them equally correct or equally valid. Let's say a newscaster is preparing a story for the evening news regarding the weather. They have a deadline in one hour, and have enough time to interview one of thier contacts. One personal friend to them is a meterologist, the other is a nature conservationist. Sure, they both may have solid opinions and even a shot a predicting what the evening's weather patterns may be, but who will have the more valid of the two opinions supported by the most facts? Probably the meterologist, because his or her training and understanding is specific to that topic.

My whole point was along those lines. Sure, everyone has an opinion and an equal right to it. The thing is, opinions actually aren't worth much, contrary to what you said, without the facts to back them up. You mention that this is a "democratic society" in response to me mentioning laws and elections. What drives this society of ours? Capitalism does my friend. Money may not be much of a concern for you (And quite honestly, as long as I have enough to pay my bills and live a decent life, it is of little interest to me as well believe it or not) but it is what fuels and supports our way of life. What someone worked to create was on thier time, and they have to survive too, so they ought to be compensated in some way for sharing it.

One simple fact is that there is little altruism out there anymore. Not many people are going to painstakingly provide a service or product for nothing in return. That is a fact of life. Capitalism is far from perfect, I will attest to its flaws and room for corruption and manipulation. However, the alternative is nothing but an idealistic dream. They tried it in the former Soviet Union. When everyone got the same pay for thier work no matter what it was, then there was no drive to do it efficiently or with any creativity. If there was no opportunity to get ahead, then why even try to begin with?

Everyone complains about there being rich people and that being unfair. They complain about not getting what they deserve. McDonalds used to say in thier ads "You deserve a break today." That's a lie. You don't deserve anything more than what you earn. If you worked hard and earned your way, then you may have a break after the work is done. Copyrights are there to protect the investments of those who invent and create. With thier ideas and contributions protected, then they will be encouraged to continue with new ideas in new directions. If everytime you made something, someone else came along, took it, used it, changed it from what you intended and basically ruined what you tried to achieve, would you waste time attempting it ever again? Probably not.

Bottom line is we live in an imperfect world. The notion that there will ever be true equality is nothing but an idealistic dream. We can strive to better ourselves, our perceptions of others, and to have a change of heart when we need to, and to convince others to change when they are wrong, but we can never make everything perfect and fair and even. Human nature will always be the variable we can never escape.

How many times at supper do you grab a bunch of the mashed potatoes. Maybe so much that there isn't enough for everyone else to have a fair and even amount? You may do it and not even realize it. Subconsciously, there is the desire to make sure you get your fair share, and then some. You can't escape it, you can only find ways to cope and control it.

That's a lot of broad discussion on this, let's bring it back home and narrow down on our main point. Dragonball is the work of Akira Toriyama and the people at Toei Animation Studios. Well before digital technology and computer animation. Toriyama-sama authored and illustrated that story for over a decade and captivated the minds and imaginations of thousands of fans out there. Those animators spent countless hours keeping a little behind the manga with lots of episodes. all hand drawn to my knowledge. They did it as a job, a way to provide for thier families and make a way in the world. Thier way may be different than ours, but they still have a right to compensation for thier work and not have it stolen, changed and misused in ways they did not intend.

I'm sorry to say Desire, that I have to agree with VegettoEX. Yours is an idealistic view of the world. It sure would be nice if it worked the way you say, and everyone just made stuff and shared it for free. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works, and that's not the way most people out there are. Also unfortunate is that if you stand up to a law that you think is unfair, then you better have a few supporters in high places that can get it changed. You better have the facts to back it up, and you better not try to take matters into your own hands, or you could end up in a world of trouble. (That is a generalized "you", not YOU specifically, by the way)

When you finish school and get out into the real world, you'll gain a better understanding of these things. That is not to belittle you or offend you, but merely to say that there are a lot of nuances about life and interacting with people that you don't fully appreciate until you get into the workplace for the first time and your actions dictate wiether you have a job or not the next day, which therefore determines if you eat or have a place to live over the course of the following month.

I know myself, and I know I come on strong sometimes with my responses. I'll be the first to admit I am even overbearing or confrontational at times. Who thinks higher of themselves than anyone else and says that openly in self reflection? I assure you that I'd defend your right to an opinion anyday my friend. It does not seem to me that I implied anything such in my previous post, but then again, I wrote it and know where I was coming from. So I am not an objective critic of something I wrote. Know that was indeed not my intent, if you got that impression.

The validity of anything I say in terms of an opinion is only as strong as the facts I can list to back it up. By saying that all opinions are equal regardless, we only serve to weaken the distinction between true facts and well delivered, educated opinions. It can be a fine line which is which, and if we lose the distinction, then where does that leave us?

That's all I have to say for now. If you read this far without resorting to skimming, then kudos to you.

[wannywan]

...desirecampbell's next post is presumably under this one....

[desirecampbell]

...desirecampbell's next post is presumably under this one....

And I get an introduction

There are two ways to approach this debate. The first way is to argue for or against with a practical standpoint, the second is to argue for or against with an ethical standpoint. To argue 'yes' or 'no' based on 'what will best for the structure and functioning of our society' or 'what is morally correct'.

The reason I seem 'naive' may stem from the fact that I'm not mixing the two. When people say things like "we live in an imperfect world", they are inserting 'functionalism' into a 'moral' issue. If something is morally correct, then it is morally correct - regardless if people adhere to it or not. Similarly, functional issues should not, by definition, be polluted with moral aspects.


From a Realpolitik standpoint:
In a Capitalist society, the compensation one receives for their efforts (goods or services) is only what the consumer is willing to give. Noone should be given special compensation because their product is not as desirable as they expect it to be. If I decide to try and sell ice to Eskimos, I'll probably do badly. Similarly, if I'm trying to sell DVDs of something most people can get quickly, easily, and freely off the Internet, I'm not going to do so well. That analogy breaks down because the first example, ice, is a single use item and it's so common that everyone can make their own; the second example's product's failure rests on the fact that it is shared between people. A better analogy than the 'ice' one would be 'flowers'. I can sell flowers, but if everyone starts sharing seeds, or giving away flowers they've grown, I'm not going to do well. In a capitalist society, noone gets special treatment. If your product is something that enough people are willing to pay for, everything's groovy. If not, you'll have to lower the cost, or increase the quality. If a company cannot succeed in selling a product, they will cease to exist. If this product then becomes scarce (perhaps in some respects, due to the fact that this company is not offering them anymore) then this company, or another, will start selling the product again. Capitalism is self sufficient and self correcting. Left alone everything will be fine.

Let's expand on the flower example. If I started selling tulips from Holland to a country without tulips, (I can't think of any, but) let's say Canada. Now these new and exotic items are rare and I can charge whatever I want. People want 'em and I'm the only way to get 'em. Business is great, so I start bringing more tulips over, it's more expensive than it was, but I'm making it all back from Canadians. Later still, the Canucks are getting in touch with people from Holland (Hollandeers? Hollandainians?) and they start learning about tulips in Holland. A new surge in popularity for my business, Sweet-o! But, what's this? My sales are down? Oh no! Those splinter-shoe bastards are giving flowers away to the Canadians? Damnit! Now the locals can get these flowers quicker than I could ever bring them over. Still, the quality of the flower is a bit low (they get a bit crushed when they're sent overseas) so there are still lots of Canadians buying flowers from me - not as many as before, but enough to keep my kids in gold-plated shoes. Even later, my sales have dropped again! What is this?! Apparently the Canadians are sharing between themselves now. They buy some of my flowers and then grow off buds and give them to their friends, their neighbors, anyone who wants them. My sales are totally in the shitter now. I might go out of business. I'll have to rethink my product line. Perhaps increase the quality, or perhaps a price cut.


From a moral standpoint:
Sharing is a good thing. Unless you're sharing a loaded gun with a cat-hating introvert, I can't think of any reason why sharing would be considered 'bad' (from a purely moral standpoint).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




And now a few specific replies:

You mention that this is a "democratic society" in response to me mentioning laws and elections. What drives this society of ours? Capitalism does my friend. Money may not be much of a concern for you ... but it is what fuels and supports our way of life. What someone worked to create was on their time, and they have to survive too, so they ought to be compensated in some way for sharing it.

True, but 'compensated' doesn't mean 'pay their way though life'. I can take a shit in the street, and call it art (it is, technically, art). That doesn't mean I should be able to do that for a living.

Copyrights are there to protect the investments of those who invent and create.

No, copyrights are meant to protect the artist's creation. And for it not to be used in a manner the artist didn't intend. This does not overshadow the consumer's right to parody, satire, and (yes) even the consumer's right to share it with others.

The validity of anything I say in terms of an opinion is only as strong as the facts I can list to back it up. By saying that all opinions are equal regardless, we only serve to weaken the distinction between true facts and well delivered, educated opinions. It can be a fine line which is which, and if we lose the distinction, then where does that leave us?

True, which is exactly why I went on, at length, about the difference between 'worth' and 'truth'. We're simply arguing semantics at this point, we both mean the same thing.

Bottom line is we live in an imperfect world. The notion that there will ever be true equality is nothing but an idealistic dream. We can strive to better ourselves, our perceptions of others, and to have a change of heart when we need to, and to convince others to change when they are wrong, but we can never make everything perfect and fair and even. Human nature will always be the variable we can never escape.

Yours is an idealistic view of the world. It sure would be nice if it worked the way you say, [but u]nfortunately, that isn't the way it works, and that's not the way most people out there are. Also unfortunate is that if you stand up to a law that you think is unfair, then you better have a few supporters in high places that can get it changed. You better have the facts to back it up, and you better not try to take matters into your own hands, or you could end up in a world of trouble.

Um, I hate to liken sharing ISOs to civil rights again, but, this paragraph could easily have been something said (word for word) to Martin Luther King Jr, in an attempt to get him to stop trying so hard. This paragraph could have been something said to Abraham Lincoln, in attempt to get him to stop trying to abolish slavery.

It makes me sound like a jerk to compare such incredibly important things to something so petty - but the underlying message is the same: change is not something that happens overnight. It takes years of hard work. Lives may have to be lost. But eventually, people will see the light. The only thing that will keep this world 'imperfect' is people like you and me not trying to change it. It's only over if we surrender.

And I will not surrender.

[MajinMetroid]

To those who are so pro-"sharing" and such, I'm just curious... do you have a job? How many jobs have you had? What types of jobs are they? Do you create things for profit? Do you provide a service for profit? How old are you? Do you live with your parents? Do you live with anyone else?

I'm 22 and I've had 3 jobs. First grocery, then maintenence and I'm currently a pizza delivery guy. We create pizzas for profit . I live with my mother and brothers. This is where you judge me, right?

"What if you owned the company and someone was able to steal your pizza and was handing it out for free across the street?"

I'd make the pizza worth paying money for. I'd make my resturant worth coming in and sitting down in and enjoying our pizza in. This, in a way, has actually happened. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but over here Little Caesers (directly across the street from our location) is selling "Hot and Ready" $5 large pizzas. $5 and ready when you get there?! They will put everyone out of business! No, their pizza is nasty and crappy. In order to sell it that low, the quality suffers. People come to us, Jets, because our pizza rocks. It costs a bit more but it's friggin' good. This isn't quite stealing/free vs. paying for but I think it's a good point.

If people make a great product, people will happily pay money for it. When the season sets were announced, the board pretty much unanimously said that the day they come out they are rushing to their nearest store and snapping them up, even people that have already spent a decent amount on the same episodes.

Last fall, I downloaded the first several episodes of the tv show Lost. Once seeing how well done they are and how good the show is, I skipped downloading the rest and went out and bought the season 1 set.

Roms have been around since the internet started I think, yet the Wii virtual console excites me tremendously. Games I can go out and download for free, I'd rather pay and play for on the console just because the experience playing with the "real" controller, playing it on tv, etc just make it worth it to me.

Since last summer, I've been buying a lot of manga, Naruto included. Up until a month ago, that was the only way I saw it, through volumes I'd purchased. I myself am dissatisfied with the amount of time between releases so I've been downloading the volumes now. I'm still buying them when they come out because I still think the quality of the english releases is a lot better than crappy scanslations. I also love ammassing a bookshelf full of stuff. Hypothetically, if all 35 volumes were released in America now, I'd stop downloading and exclusively buy them because the experience of holding the book in your hands is way better than reading off a computer screen. I just can't wait three or four months to get a volume where three things happen and then I have to wait again... especially when I know how far we are behind Japan, etc.

Fullmetal Alchemist and Death Note are a different story. They come out a bit more frequently and the wait is usually worth it. I have yet to read any of this online and don't want to.

I'm assuming you asked those questions to gauge my (or our) ability to pay for the things I'm advocating should be shared freely. As these seem to bring the issue to a more personal level, these are just some examples from my life in which I happily spend my money.