Dragonball & YouTube

mAcChaos · Post by **mAcChaos** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:11 pm

Since this kind of ties into it, what's everybody's feeling on file sharing in general, like music and stuff like that?

Post by **desirecampbell** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:27 pm

Domon, how it is a bad example? I use it everytime someone claims that the law should be followed for no other reason than "it's the law". It's a clear and concrete example of why that logic is flawed. I use such an extreme example because noone will argue that slavery is moral.

Rather than getting flustered and unable to response, they point out how poor and offensive an analogy it is

What?! But that's all anyone does about it! They don't respond. Everyone goes "that example is bad... slavery is bad... stop calling me a slave driver". They completely ignore the questions I pose. If I wanted people to stop discussing the topic I'd stop posting. I've been trying to get anyone to discuss the morality of the law - no one has. I want people to discuss the law, and it's implications - no one is. If I stopped posting this whole thread would die. I am the only one trying to continue this discussion.

This discussion is looping endlessly. I ask questions about why this law should exist. Someone says that piracy would destroy certain industries or that the law should be followed simply because "it's the law". I reply with the slavery example because it points out the flaws in such an argument. Then someone gets offended that I would use such an example (completely ignoring the reasoning behind it, and the validity of it) and we go on for several more posts. They say I'm calling them slave drivers, I explain that I'm not. Then they stop responding entirely. They don't come back to answer the questions I've posed.

Eventually someone else comes in and says something without reading the thread, to which I then go over what the discussion is about and pose the same question I always do... that never get answered. And we start all over again.

And as I've pointed out before, why not just use a different example that isn't so extreme and senestive to so many?

As I explained in my last post: because another example might create an argument over that. I want to use an example that noone will argue about. Noone will argue that slavery should be legal. Would you rather I use abortion instead? Do you think that won't cause the discussion to turn into an argument about that, instead of the actual topic?

I never said that you're directy accusing me of being a supporter of slavery(or at least someone that would if slavery was still in place). But you are indirecty linking me and the rest of the opposition with such a thing and trying, however (un)sublely to bring them into a negative light.

No. I am simply trying to show that believing that a law should be accepted simply "because it's a law" is stupid. Everyone here already knows this. I'm not bringing up new information - I'm simply reminding you that there have been laws that were unjust. That had no moral basis, and were unnecessarily keeping an industry going. That is exactly what I'm saying this anti-filesharing legislation is. Is that so hard to understand? I've explained this in great detail before. I'm pretty sure I'm correct about this.However, I've asked for other people's opinions as well. Their ethical observations, as well as their thoughts on whether or not this law stagnates the industries involved. I've asked this repeatedly. Noone responds to that. They always go "oooo, don't say slavery ooo!"

Frankly, I don't understand how you can expect people not to find slavery such a far reaching and offensive example to use.

Goddamnit. I'm starting to think I haven't explained this before. I mean, if I'd explained why I used such a far-reaching and extreme example in a previous post, and you've said you read the whole thread, you'd have to be retarded to keep asking that question.

desirecampbell, in his previous post wrote:Domon, I'm getting sick of people getting offended about this. Every time I explain this I point out that there's a big difference in the scale and reach of the example - but the underlying point is the same: lawfulness does not equal ethical.

Oh, well. Perhaps actually reading my posts would help.

It also represent a conflict of interest in this debate. We're trying to discuss the morality of filesharing and how the rights of the consumer is being inflicted upon. Trying to bring down slavery(and all the human right issues associated with it) to a comparable level can be seen(and probably is) trivializing the issue and may be aruged by some as irresponsible and immoral(I don't claim to be able to make that particular arguement myself, but certainly others could).

No. I am trying to discuss the morality of filesharing and how the rights of the consumer is being inflicted upon. You, and almost everyone else here, have failed to actually say anything other than "it's the law".

Do you have anything to add to the discussion? Or will you simply 'discuss' the slavery example again? Or do you need me to explain what "morality" means again? You showed interest in discussin it - why don't you discuss it?

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:14 pm

Goddamnit. I'm starting to think I haven't explained this before. I mean, if I'd explained why I used such a far-reaching and extreme example in a previous post, and you've said you read the whole thread, you'd have to be retarded to keep asking that question.

So now we're resorting to name-calling? Well, whatever. I'm through with this topic. Its gone on far enough and passed the point of no return. Now, I'm sure the reaction to this will be to call me "chicken", "coward" and "avoiding the question." But I couldn't care less at this point.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:26 pm

Domon wrote:So now we're resorting to name-calling? Well, whatever. I'm through with this topic. Its gone on far enough and passed the point of no return. Now, I'm sure the reaction to this will be to call me "chicken", "coward" and "avoiding the question." But I couldn't care less at this point.

I'm not trying to insult you Domon, I'm trying to point out that I've explained this before. There's absolutly no reason why you would have to have me explain this again. If you have a specific problem with the slavery example, state it. Don't say "it's extreme", I know that - I've explained that that was exactly the point.

Victator Supreme · Post by **Victator Supreme** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:02 pm

Desire is not compring Slavery to file sharing. He is saying "Its the law", is not a good enough reason to condemn something.

Ho bout this compare it to prohibition or anti pot laws.

BlueSky · Post by **Kaboom** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:10 pm

It's about time I gave my two cents.

I don't know much about the law when it comes to this kind of thing, and I really don't want or care to, since it seems to just be a bunch of baloney that's more about people making money than anything else.

All I know is that, probably thanks to a bunch of suited oscar mayer weiners only concerned about making money, YouTube.com is likely the only way I'll be able to watch a lot of stuff, especially anime.

And until Oolong flies (a.k.a 4Kids quits mangling it), or until it's pulled off the site, then I'll continue to watch japanese, english-subbed, unedited One Piece on YouTube. And I don't care what any prick lawyers might say.

SkylarEC · Post by **SkylarEC** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:02 pm

Ugh... I said I wouldn't click back into this thread, but here I am...

And now that I am back here, I would like to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with Desire's allusion to Slavery.

When one goes to have a debate with someone, one needs to give concrete examples. And very few (actually no) examples make the point more clear than the extreme.

If you can't handle this kind of comparision, perhaps you shouldn't be in on this discussion.

Anonymous Friend · Post by **Anonymous Friend** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:50 pm

I'm not quite up to date on my 18th and 19th century laws and ordinances, but was there any laws that actually said that you could have slaves or was it more of an agreement amung those who favored it?

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:44 pm

Anonymous Friend wrote:I'm not quite up to date on my 18th and 19th century laws and ordinances, but was there any laws that actually said that you could have slaves or was it more of an agreement amung those who favored it?

Laws usually prohibit acts, not allow them. There are certain peices of legislation that give rights, but these are far outnumbered by prohititive laws.

At that time, there were no laws prohibiting the ownership of other people.

Anonymous Friend · Post by **Anonymous Friend** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:47 pm

The reason I ask is that the slavery/copyright infringement correlation just doen't work. In fact, bringing up the whole slavery issue got me thinking that people who didn't like slavery pushed and pushed then finally the laws were changed.

If you don't like the current set up of the copyright laws, then you can take steps to have them updated and changed.

Also, how does Akira Toriyama feel about his work being spead about? I mean, he signed a contact with the distributors of his work and he probably knew of the laws involved. And these laws were put in place to protect people like him, people who create stuff.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:17 pm

Anonymous Friend wrote:The reason I ask is that the slavery/copyright infringement correlation just doen't work. In fact, bringing up the whole slavery issue got me thinking that people who didn't like slavery pushed and pushed then finally the laws were changed.

Good point. A better example aould be the other example, the one about the American Civil Rights movement. There there were laws that were challanged and changed.

Anonymous Friend wrote:If you don't like the current set up of the copyright laws, then you can take steps to have them updated and changed.

As I've said before, it's not exactly illegal here. I'm merely engaging in a debate about the morality of such actions regardless of the lawfulness.

Anonymous Friend wrote:Also, how does Akira Toriyama feel about his work being spead about? I mean, he signed a contact with the distributors of his work and he probably knew of the laws involved. And these laws were put in place to protect people like him, people who create stuff.

That would be interesting to find out. Would it changed people's opinions on the matter?

Bardock the Mexican · Post by **Bardock the Mexican** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:35 pm

This disscussion is similar to disscusions about whether or not illegal immigration is wrong. It's illegal for one thing and yet everyone has an opinion on it. If it was where there was only one opinion, that of the state would be that it is wrong without question. If people have dissenting viewpoints on it, it only goes to show one thing. That people will have different ideas on a subject regardless of what the official position and the law say. What does this have to do with Youtube and Dragonball in particular? Lots to do with it. If Youtube has a copyrighted video uploaded on it's site, then the site is not responsable for the actions of the individual who put it there. That is no different then an auto company being held responsable for a moter vehicle accident death. The site owners can only affect what affects them and what they do. The person who put the video on the site is the one responsable for what he did. There may not be a moral wrongdoing, but there is a legal wrong done there. The copyright owners have every right by law to persecute those that violate copyright law. They (the company) have paid for the right to use the copyrighted material in concordance with the law. There is no reason why a legitamate company should have it's hands tied behind it's back when it's being ripped off. Does anyone understand what I'm getting at?

Victator Supreme · Post by **Victator Supreme** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:36 am

As far as I remember there were laws about slavery on the books defining blck people as property and having no rights as a human being. One case in paticuler (I'm blanking on the name.), was about a slave whose owner died on a trip up north. The slave said since he was up north, he was free now. The courts said he had no rights as a person and was property, he was then given to the widow.

Kanzenshuu

Dragonball & YouTube

Who is online