|
|
|
El Salvador pirates protest new copyright laws
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 17 January, 2006
For years the streets of San Salvador have been full of street vendors selling bootleg copies of CDs and DVDs for very low prices. Now, new tougher copyright laws have come into place since 1st January this year which include a mandatory jail sentence for selling pirated software movies or music. The new copyright laws were part of El Salvador's implementation of CAFTA. CAFTA provisions ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Condo
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. February 2006 @ 08:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Back in Sociology 101, I had a hardcore Marxist professor who preached avoiding the logical trap of "blaming the victim". For example, poverty is not the fault of the poor or the result of some defect they have, therefore you are wrong to blame poverty on the inaction of the poor themselves. I find this is a useful lesson, but have also discovered it is applied only expediently by the left. If the victim is a large corporation, it is OK to say it is their fault for tempting thieves into action. Never mind that the majority of stock shares are now owned by retirees and pension funds and are no longer the exclusive domain of a bunch of rich guys. It is an easy out to assuage one's conscience by pretending this is just sticking it to the wealthy or to some non-human fiscal entity like a corporation, but it isn’t.
Nor am I any longer persuaded by the old leftist rhetorical trick of reversing cause and effect to masquerade as some kind of enlightened world view. Walmart doesn't go into a country and ruin its economy by starting sweat shops. It goes into countries that are already in economic ruin and brings cash. Local sweatshop owners bid to make their products. The governments are happy to see the cash come over their borders because it is more than they had before. It is absolutely true that these factories often have work conditions are terrible by modern western standards. Our own industrial revolution was fraught with dangerous sweatshop labor adjudged from our current perspective. But to suggest other countries not be allowed to go through that economic phase, but must capitalize to modern western standards at the outset of their endeavors? That is too high a hurdle for most. It stifles their ability to enter the world market. It is ultimately an argument that they should stay the way they are: poor.
I spent some time working with the World Health Organization's test lab in Cali, Columbia in the early 90's. One lab technician's mother owned a video rental store. Her big complaint was she couldn't get many good Hollywood movies with Spanish subtitles or dubbing. The reason stemmed from the fact Hollywood had written off income from Hispanic countries years before. Anything they got by way of sales south of the boarder was icing on the cake to them. Instead, it was Mexican distribution companies that acquired film rights (cheaply) then paid their own actors and technicians to produce the dubbed and subtitled versions. According to the video store owner in Cali, their choices tended too much toward action and horror movies, and too little toward serious cinema. Presumably the Mexican distributors knew their customers, but Hollywood wasn’t putting any money into translating films into Spanish. Unless the DVD era and the presence of more native Spanish speakers in L.A. has changed this situation, or unless El Salvadorans have all started watching films in English, my guess would be that the pirates in El Salvador are stealing mainly from Mexicans.
The poor stealing first and foremost from the poor is an old story. It is one reason stealing should be discouraged as a social value. Another is that it undermines the concept of ownership. A colleague, who set up water purification systems for the WHO in India, said they found that if they gave systems away and let people use the water free, within six months the machinery would be broken down and unsalvageable. Despite the child deaths form dysentery it would immediately prevent, when nobody owned or profited from it, nobody volunteered their busy hours to clean filters or do other routine maintenance. Instead they put the systems in the hands of local businessmen. These fellows came on bicycle every day to fill bottles from the machine which they took away to sell for a few pennies. Under this system the water purification systems were always properly maintained and kept working.
I think we all have a generosity impulse to try to fix problems and people by giving them what they need and taking care of them like a big brother. The idea that this does them an ultimate disservice is hard to swallow at first, but looking at the way our U.S. anti-poverty programs have locked generations into permanent poverty suggests it is simply how human beings are. It may not say anything flattering about our species, but it seems to be the case that fostering self-interest and ownership and, implicitly, by opposing the theft of what is owned, we ultimately create the best conditions for improving standards of living. Following that comes improved working conditions, health, and general wellbeing.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
16. February 2006 @ 12:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
"If the victim is a large corporation, it is OK to say it is their fault for tempting thieves into action." Condo
I feel you are dishonest, or have been largely misled as to the nature of a corporation. A corporation cannot be endowed with personhood.
--------
"To understand personhood we need to look at the history of the 14th Amendment.
"The one pervading purpose" [of the 14th Amendment] "was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him." That is exactly what Justice Miller said in 1873 in one of the first Supreme Court opinions to rule on the 14th Amendment.
How strange it is then that in 1886 a Supreme Court opinion would establish the principle that the 14th Amendment makes Corporations "persons" for purposes of Constitutional interpretation. The opinion gives no guidance to the reason for this principle. The question was not even argued since Chief Justice Waite announced at oral argument that "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
This opinion has outraged some of the finest legal minds to serve on the Supreme Court. Later Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas both wrote opinions saying that this interpretation of corporations as persons should be reversed.
"I do not believe that the word 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations."
-- Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1938)
"There was no history, logic, or reason given to support that view nor was the result so obvious that exposition was unnecessary." --William O. Douglas (1949)
Not only is it ridiculous to consider corporations to be people, but it is wreaking havoc with our democratic process.
A corporation is not a person. It is an artificial entity created by "We the People" and given our recognition through our duly elected State governments. We the People wrote the Constitution and declared in it people's natural rights."
------
Corporations aren't the victims, rather, we are the victims of corporations.
Walmart exploits people. Fair and simple. Is it normal that Multinationals, average more GDP than some nations around the world?
Walmart grosses an average of 20 cents on every 1$ made in the USA.
Which leads me to the conclusion that there should be a limit on profit since "Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely"
"But to suggest other countries not be allowed to go through that economic phase, but must capitalize to modern western standards at the outset of their endeavors? That is too high a hurdle for most. It stifles their ability to enter the world market. It is ultimately an argument that they should stay the way they are: poor."
That may have been true in the past, but it doesn't apply in today's modern world in the least.
The IMF has systematically empoverished dozens of nations around the world and destabilized whole regions with their privatization programs, Bankrolling speculation, etc...
(I suggest you read the No-nonsense guide to globalization by Wayne Ellwood)
The organizations like the IMF, and Multinations like Walmart ARE EFFECTIVELY STEALING OUR FUTURE.
"The poor stealing first and foremost from the poor is an old story. It is one reason stealing should be discouraged as a social value."
Corporations have been stealing resources from third world nations for decades now, if anything, can the inequitous promote social values? Nay, its hypocritical praise.
"Another is that it undermines the concept of ownership."
The concept of ownership is ubiquitous and I sincerely doubt that it substantially undermines it.
"A colleague, who set up water purification systems for the WHO in India, said they found that if they gave systems away and let people use the water free, within six months the machinery would be broken down and unsalvageable."
If I remember correctly, in India, people dying of starvation on the side of the road for example is a common occurence. Instead of helping these people, they throw flowers at them as a sign of respect and or act of compassion.
That is truly deplorable. India as a society can't afford to be individualistic, they should considered a collectivistic approach on the current problems plaguing their nation.
Besides, don't expect the poor to help their neighbours out of their misery unless there's a little something in it for them in most cases anyways.
"The idea that this does them an ultimate disservice is hard to swallow at first, but looking at the way our U.S. anti-poverty programs have locked generations into permanent poverty suggests it is simply how human beings are."
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
This proverb speaks for itself, perhaps the U.S. has been trying to tackle poverty poorly; ironic. Teaching others how to become a self-reliant and self-sufficient is priceless. However, think about it, you illustrate a common problem as well in the USA... Are we able ourselves to be self-sufficient if a catastrophe of massive proportions were to afflict us? The answer is no, and I think we are being very hard on the people we are trying to help by expecting too much.
"It may not say anything flattering about our species, but it seems to be the case that fostering self-interest and ownership and, implicitly, by opposing the theft of what is owned, we ultimately create the best conditions for improving standards of living."
Speak for yourself, but don't include others in your largely general categorizations.
Hot_Ice yo!
|
|
Condo
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. February 2006 @ 17:42 |
Link to this message
|
@ Hot_Ice
“I feel you are dishonest, or have been largely misled as to the nature of a corporation. A corporation cannot be endowed with personhood.
--------
(snip of Supreme Court quotes proving a corporation is not a person)
------
Corporations aren't the victims, rather, we are the victims of corporations.“ Hot_Ice
I think because you have no exposure to business practices, you completely missed my point. That a corporation is not a person actually is what explains my point. Not being human, a corporation doesn’t have personal ambitions to own a flat screen HDTV, dine at Chéz Larousse, or vacation in Cancun. It uses money as part of the process of conducting business, but has no personal use for income exceeding what this process requires: the excess profit. So these profits are first taxed, then, what remains goes to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The corporation pays for theft and other losses out of this money, since all the rest of the money is tied up by what is required to keep operating. So the loss comes out of what would otherwise be paid to the retirees and pension funds who now own most of the stock. That is why these are the people actually stolen from, and why it is that stealing from a corporation is not justified by the fact the corporation itself isn’t human. It’s the people that money would otherwise go to that get hurt.
“Walmart exploits people. Fair and simple. Is it normal that Multinationals, average more GDP than some nations around the world? “ Hot_Ice
You may have to elaborate on this comment. To be communicating in the same language, exploitation isn’t a bad word. If you use college loans you exploit taxpayers as insurers and interest payers during your tenure as a student. I exploit myself every time I go to work for money. We all ultimately exploit of each other’s specialized abilities to provide things. In other words, it is only unfair exploitation that is a moral and ethical problem, not the fair exploitation.
As to the sheer volume of corporate income, have you considered that many multinational corporations have more employees than some countries have population, children included? Considering how corruptly and poorly run many nations are, I should be more surprised if it weren’t true that some corporations have larger gross products. I’m not sure what that logical fact means other than that they are larger and/or better orgainized.
“Walmart grosses an average of 20 cents on every 1$ made in the USA. . .” Hot_Ice
This is what clued me to your lack of business experience. The normal rule of thumb used by accountants is that brick and mortar retail operations break even with 22% gross margin. Out of that 22% come the taxes and fees and, most importantly, employee salaries and benefits. If you think Walmart underpays its employees, then you are indirectly advocating that their gross margin be increased.
40% gross margin is the normal margin for small to medium size brick and mortar retail businesses. If Walmart’s gross is 20% and they still have any net margin left over to distribute to shareholders, they are running very efficiently indeed.
Recommended reading: The Wall Street Journal. It may not change your politics, but at you will stay abreast of your enemies’ activities and see how they actually operate.
“. . . Which leads me to the conclusion that there should be a limit on profit since "Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely."”
What Lord Acton actually said in his famous 1887 letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, was: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
I find it a deliciously apropos irony that you quote a credentialed aristocrat in defending a leftist perspective. Historically, both full aristocracies and communist governments deny private property rights and private ownership of the means of production (it all belongs to The State, or it all belongs to The King (who is The State)). Bottom line: they want to control it themselves.
Acton, with very unaristocratic candor, was, in particular, warning us of the power of government in the hands of The Great for the reason that government controls the considerable coercive forces of the military and police; not mere financial power. From Hitler to Stalin to Tamerlane, power’s ability to corrupt is a principle indifferent to ideology. Private enterprise generally lacks the coercive firepower, organized crime being the first exception that comes to mind; and it isn’t legal.
"But to suggest other countries not be allowed to go through that economic phase, but must capitalize to modern western standards at the outset of their endeavors? That is too high a hurdle for most. It stifles their ability to enter the world market. It is ultimately an argument that they should stay the way they are: poor." Condo
“That may have been true in the past, but it doesn't apply in today's modern world in the least.” Hot_Ice
Oh, wouldn’t it be pretty to think so? But coming back down to earth, the whole reason China gave for being excused from participation in the Kyoto Accords’ proposed emissions standards was exactly that they can’t be expected to be able to capitalize scrubbers and other emissions equipment at their stage of development. Ditto safety standards. The U.S. had fewer than 30 deaths in mining accidents last year. China had over 5000. Even adjusted for population, the disparity is rather dramatic.
“The IMF has systematically empoverished dozens of nations around the world and destabilized whole regions with their privatization programs, Bankrolling speculation, etc... (snip)”
The IMF is yet another fine example of a government-created operation and is as incompetent to administer privatization as any other. What’s your point?
“The organizations like the IMF, and Multination(al)s like Walmart ARE EFFECTIVELY STEALING OUR FUTURE.”
These organizations are nothing alike in operation. Other than it’s administrative exchange rate and trade balance functions to avoid recurrence of the trade barrier triggered depression of the 1930’s, I don’t see any particular use for the IMF either.
You’re going to have to get down to details and describe the future we would otherwise have without the major job providing business organizations? This way we will know what is being stolen, exactly? Economics is not a zero sum game, and which resources are most valuable changes with technological paradigms. Things tend to be Important to the world one day and pointless the next. If you’re going to tell me we would have some kind of worker’s Utopia in place of our current structure, that’s an unlikely stretch of the imagination, too. As David Bergland says: “Eutopia is a place where everyone always has everything they want and nothing ever goes wrong. Eutopia is not one of the options.” If you want to see what freedom from commercial influence and activity can provide, North Korea is the most prominent current example. More on that place below.
"The poor stealing first and foremost from the poor is an old story. It is one reason stealing should be discouraged as a social value." Condo
I meant this more literally than you took it. I think you need some time in a crime-ridden inner city neighborhood to get my drift. I’ve lived in a couple, so I know whereof I speak.
“Corporations have been stealing resources from third world nations for decades now, if anything, can the inequitous promote social values? Nay, its hypocritical praise.” Hot_Ice
I didn’t see any place that I suggested Corporations exist to promote social values. A few do, but those are usually charitable or religion undertakings, not for profit. On the other hand, I think our corporations represent a social value. In other words, our society clearly values them. Profit corporations participate in society by doing business, which they can’t do if they don’t offer something their buyers and sellers want and value. Think of them as a character in a play, not the playwright. Drug companies are the ones with serious gross margins. Try several hundred percent on for size. Yet nobody argues they provide nothing of value to society.
“The concept of ownership is ubiquitous and I sincerely doubt that it substantially undermines it.” Hot_Ice
Poor choice of words on my part. Respect for ownership as a social value is what I should have said. This is actually a long-identified issue with all laws. A society that treats some violations with a wink and a nod soon finds people start winking and nodding at the law of their choice, which can be disastrous. Consider fire safety and overload capacity violations, for example. In many parts of the world these are just considered leverage government employees use to extract bribes.
“That is truly deplorable. India as a society can't afford to be individualistic, they should considered a collectivistic approach on the current problems plaguing their nation.” Hot_Ice
This maybe is the crux of the matter. You are right that it would be beneficial if people behaved collectively in many matters, but in the real world they just won’t or don’t sustain it if they start. That’s was the point of my comment that real human behavior wasn’t always flattering to our species. And the lesson of the water purifiers in India is far from the only example of its kind. From the economic collapse of the former Soviet Union to the current situation in North Korea, where isolation from corporate profiteering is pretty complete, the policy of indoctrinating people to and depending on collectivism has left them dependent on foreign food to prevent starvation and, in the case of the kidnapped Japanese, even on foreign education. Dependence on collectivism just repeatedly fails unless you have huge natural resource wealth to support it.
You can motivate most people to labor for an ideal for a period of time, but very few to do so for a lifetime. I’ve seen estimates that it can be managed in 15% to 20% of people. The rest, after awhile, start conserving energy and only do the dead minimum required to stay out of trouble. As an aside, about twenty years ago management studies of how to introduce change into the workplace found about that same percentage represents both the number of workers in any large group who are willing to try almost anything new, as well as the number who will resist trying almost anything new. Most people fall somewhere in between in their willingness to try new things. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I doubt it. It’s about attitude.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Hot_Ice
Yeah, but don’t forget the context of that ancient Chinese saying: The man is hungry. That’s the catch (sorry, couldn’t resist). He is motivated to learn to fish. If he thinks you’ll just give him another fish whenever he asks, what’s his motivation? He won’t learn or won’t learn well.
“Teaching others how to become a self-reliant and self-sufficient is priceless. However, think about it, you illustrate a common problem as well in the USA... Are we able ourselves to be self-sufficient if a catastrophe of massive proportions were to afflict us? The answer is no, and I think we are being very hard on the people we are trying to help by expecting too much.” Hot_Ice
I think you got it right in the first sentence. They have to be motivated, unfortunately, by the very real threat that they will be left out in the cold if they don’t learn it. The New Orleans debacle is an example of that. The Amy Corp of Engineers proposed and had the money set aside to reinforce and raise the levies in ‘94, but an environmental impact lawsuit by the Sierra club scuttled it. They got environmental impact, alright; all that gasoline laden water being pumped out into Lake Pontchartrain. Then evacuation rehearsals were conducted as recently as a year before, then not followed when the moment came. Most flood pumps weren’t maintained properly and didn’t work. So, with the preventive measures neatly neutralized, first by good intentions, then by ineptitude, that city’s government went into denial and delayed evacuation. Then its state government delayed asking for assistance. Then the federal government tripped over its two left feet trying to finally provide that assistance. Just one organization got several semi’s loaded with everything from blankets and bottled water to food and clothing and had it on its way to New Orleans in under 8 hours. Local FEMA? The Red Cross? Nope. Walmart.
“Under capitalism man exploits man, but under communism it’s the other way around.” Mad Magazine circa 1965.
“If you aren’t a socialist in your 20’s, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative in your 40’s, you have no head. If you aren’t a curmudgeon in your 60’s, you haven’t been paying attention.” Jeff Cooper’s variation of the François Guizot quotation.
“Duncan”—word,
Condo
|
Senior Member
|
17. February 2006 @ 21:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
@condo
I will have time to refute your arguments and clarify some points, however, I will be shortly delayed since my sister has burdened me with some rather nasty trojans...
Norton tells me its a bundle trojan...Seems good things come in packages...
DAMN YOU INTERNET EXPLORER TO HELL. IF ONLY MY SISTER KNEW HOW TO USE RED HAT LINUX!!
AHHHHHHHHHH!!
|
|
Condo
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
18. February 2006 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
At least get her to run FireFox. She probably won't miss the ActiveX functions.
My sister's machine got so infested (over 900 hits by AdAware, plus a VX2 variant) and she was getting about 100 spams a day. I talked her into backing up her essential data and wiped the disk and started over. I added a router to her single machine just to get the hardware firewall, and we changed her ISP and and e-mail accounts at the same time. I put in the Zone Alarm suite. Spy Sweeper and AdAware Pro's Ad Watch also load for redundant spyware protection. I subscribed her to Spamcop to have it pick up from her main e-mail account and filter and deliver to a second e-mail account and set Eudora so that second address doesn't show up in her replies. You really have to jump through hoops to secure Windows.
Wheee. I'm hoping not to go through that again any time soon.
Condo
|
|
jpc1958
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. February 2006 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ Condo
I am impressed with your opinions and skill at addressing these issues that go way beyong socially unacceptable behaviour. Excellent reading! My hat is off to you sir!
I have contacts at the IMF, World Bank, IFC, and the IADB. They promote commerce and the construction of many commercial and civil engineering projects. They are all about promoting the betterment of the people they serve. Unfortunately, the people they deal with sometimes are extremely corrupt, but they are in power. This causes uneasy alliances with people who most people would not want to deal with. These persons in power rape and pillage their own people and natural resources, then put those natural and human resources up as collateral for the loans the banks and international organizations provide. These banks then have to deal with the fallout when the deposed leaders who have stashed the money in foreign European and Carribbean bank accounts, or in gold, diamonds, or untraceable bearer bonds, etc., skip town or go to countries where they pay bribes for protection and isolation from prosecution. It's a whole world problem, not just in the western hemiphere. This gets the banks into hot water with the anarchists who demand an end to the the world bank, et al. The world bank is an interesting organization that is quasi-governmental and private at the same time. It is ironically mostly controlled by very rich people in second and third world countries. They try to take over the collateral that is put up as security for these multi-billion dollar loans and that causes riots and unrest bot in the countries where the loans are made, but also in the countries where the World Bank meets (mostly Washington, DC). You see the news on Network television as bands of anarchists riot in the streets as the World Bank conducts their meetings.
This would be a perfect time in the discussion to talk about selling the media (DVDs - we did start this thread on that topic, yes?) with regional restrictions. Say the DVDs had - a REGION code? That might work, but people find ways to hack the regional coding scheme in DVDs or with software to circumvent regional coding, it just never ends...
What if we as a 1st world country, went to Venezuela and just stole their oil? Would that be OK? I mean they get a LOT of money for their cartel controlled foscile fuels. Why should I pay more for it, just because I live in a country where it's an import? Don't the Venezuelans deserve a profit on their product? Sure they do. Digital does not mean "devoid of value", it's just easier to counterfiet or steal. Shame we don't have digital oil, huh?
My Humble Opinion...
Joe
|
Senior Member
|
19. February 2006 @ 12:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
"I think because you have no exposure to business practices."
I take no offense to this since I am still a student and haven't had much exposure in the business world as of yet.
"So the loss comes out of what would otherwise be paid to the retirees and pension funds who now own most of the stock. That is why these are the people actually stolen from, and why it is that stealing from a corporation is not justified by the fact the corporation itself isn’t human. It’s the people that money would otherwise go to that get hurt."
I've actually worked in a corporation, and there are actually a lot of slimeballs within it. Do I feel sorry for them, no absolutely not, however, thou shalt not steal, and you do have a point.
Your interpretation of the word exploitation is quite different than mine. Allow me to elaborate: yes, when you go to work it is a form of exploitation, however you get a decent return on the amount of labor given by you.
Now working in a factory in a 3rd world country, and getting paid 3 cents an hour for it isn't as decent, isn't that exploitation?
Based on your previous statements, you would suggest a resounding no. Therefore, my questions is this: what is the real definition of exploitation?
"As to the sheer volume of corporate income, have you considered that many multinational corporations have more employees than some countries have population, children included? Considering how corruptly and poorly run many nations are, I should be more surprised if it weren’t true that some corporations have larger gross products. I’m not sure what that logical fact means other than that they are larger and/or better orgainized."
Corporations wield power equivalent to that of a nation. Corporations can interfere with local governments interests. Therefore, corporations have evolved into something unique. This was my point of interest, should have been more clear.
“Walmart grosses an average of 20 cents on every 1$ made in the USA. . .” Hot_Ice
That wasn't even my quote, believe it or not, I got it off the news by a reporter or some sort of analyst. You cannot possibly hold me accountable for repeating what they said...hehehehee
"This is what clued me to your lack of business experience."
Isn't that a tad harsh, I did afterall take a few business classes!
"The normal rule of thumb used by accountants is that brick and mortar retail operations break even with 22% gross margin. Out of that 22% come the taxes and fees and, most importantly, employee salaries and benefits. If you think Walmart underpays its employees, then you are indirectly advocating that their gross margin be increased. 40% gross margin is the normal margin for small to medium size brick and mortar retail businesses. If Walmart’s gross is 20% and they still have any net margin left over to distribute to shareholders, they are running very efficiently indeed."
Thankfully, my sister is a Chartered Accountant, so I don't have to ever deal with this loololl. However, thumbs up on the explanation!
"deliciously apropos irony" Lol priceless! I liked that one. Its important to remember, that everything in this world is based on ideology, and nothing exists without it.
"The IMF is yet another fine example of a government-created operation and is as incompetent to administer privatization as any other. What’s your point?"
It was pretty destructive in Argentina, I suggest you read on it. If anything, to keep you well informed...
"You’re going to have to get down to details and describe the future we would otherwise have without the major job providing business organizations? This way we will know what is being stolen, exactly?"
Again look up Argentina and the 10 billion dollars (around that amount) that left the country in a day and left it in ruins due to the IMF.
A Utopian type society will never come to fruition since we aren't advanced enough to fathom its workings.
"I think you need some time in a crime-ridden inner city neighborhood to get my drift. I’ve lived in a couple, so I know whereof I speak."
Well, I've had the chance to live in poverty and war striken neighborhoods, and you do have a point. However, I simply chose to illustrate another.
"I didn’t see any place that I suggested Corporations exist to promote social values."
Well, true, I went on a tangent and it happens that I babble... :~O
"In other words, our society clearly values them" Society values corporations because they value money, nothing more.
"Its about attitude" Brilliant assessment!
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Hot_Ice
"Yeah, but don’t forget the context of that ancient Chinese saying: The man is hungry. That’s the catch (sorry, couldn’t resist). He is motivated to learn to fish. If he thinks you’ll just give him another fish whenever he asks, what’s his motivation? He won’t learn or won’t learn well."
True, but it is better to know where to start, than not know where or what to begin with.
“Under capitalism man exploits man, but under communism it’s the other way around.” Mad Magazine circa 1965.
“If you aren’t a socialist in your 20’s, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative in your 40’s, you have no head. If you aren’t a curmudgeon in your 60’s, you haven’t been paying attention.” Jeff Cooper’s variation of the François Guizot quotation.
Good quotes, I especially like the word curmudgeon, it brought a smile to my face lol.
Hot _ Ice Yo!
|
|
BLeiss2
Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
F*** these stupid laws. i say if u r intelligent enough to "acquire" movies, games, software, etc. with a little time and effort then it wouldn't make paying for them very logical. these laws are just a way for the selfish, greedy creators of the material to make even more money(as if they don't make enough off lagit purchases) thoses are the plaeople ruining America, no wonder other contries think were so selfish.
Oh, and another thing. all you people who support these stupid laws must hate robin hood. "God damn that bastard robin hood, stealing from the King so i can survive" translation- "god damn those al salvador people making it so i can afford a movie, their so evil"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. March 2006 @ 13:04
|
Junior Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 13:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
@BLeiss2, so you think it should just be a free for all? No one should have to follow any rules or laws because they themselve deem them stupid? What the F*#$ is wrong with you. What are you, like twelve years old and think that if things aren't fair, just take your toys and go home? If every one in the world thought like you there would be no F&$#ing games, music, or movies to steal any way. What would be the point of making anything? No one would buy anything from you when they can just take it. ROBIN HOOD? Do you still believe in fairy tales? You are an IDIOT if you can justify stealing because Robin Hood did it, and that makes it all right! Grow up.
|
|
BLeiss2
Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 15:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol all im saying is people in el salvador cant affor a $20 movie. and 90% of the people in the world are too stupid to get free music or games, i was just sayin is that that it goes to show how selfish some people are. they have to attack and go after the 10% of people that take the time, do the research and get stuff for free. they arent satisfied with the rest of the people that dont care about dropin 15$ on a CD or DVD because they think they can be getting another million or so of f the people ripping them off. thats wat i get pissed about. they make tens of millions and they have the nerve to bitch about the 1 mil they dont make.
|
Senior Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 15:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well the movie/music industry really isn't interested if you've done your research or not. Either way they're losing money they could be making, if say someone did their research and bought it for cheap, then they probably wouldn't mind, as long as they get there money. Money is what makes the world go around, and people are going to want all that they believe they deserve, or at least all they can get. Could you honestly say to me that you wouldn't do the same thing? Think about your said '10 percent' of people that get music and movies for free [a figure I think is probably off by a considerable amount] The amount of money that the movie and music industry's deal with is enormous. Think about losing 10 percent of your salary, because someone was ignoring established laws. Since you seem so concerned about your welfare, you'd want that 10% correct? A million dollars is worth just about as much money as it is to anyone else. Doesn't matter how many millions you have. It's a lot of money.
|
|
BLeiss2
Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 15:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
i agree, but say u made 9 million of a cd, and 1 million u didnt make because of pircay. do u think it is right for u to complain that u ONLY made 9 million dollars. they seem to be more unhappy about the mony they dont make. they dont even use most of their money, they buy whatever the F*** they want and they still hae millions left. if i was an artist and i was loosing even more money than i was making, i would still be estatic that i had a couple million. in all honesty WTF would i do with a million dollars. americans get so much money for ridiculous shit and get pissed when they think they get ripped off. alex rodriguez bitched that 23 million a year wasnt enough. now WTF dos arod do with 23 million dollars. BTW he did get an extra 2 mil. do u know what sum people would do for two million dollars. all ARod does is play baseball (which shouldn't qualify as a job because jobs arent sopposed to be fun, and u loose your job when u F*** up, but not him)he is just an example. there are so many over paid athletes and singers ect. it is pretty hard to pirate something an athlete does, but heres a fun fact. sum @$$hole football player sued a man for taping the football game that the player had played in and got a quick $200,000. so if u can seriously tell me that u wouldnt be satisfied makin a couple mil a year while even in america there are homes that reach 15 degrease becaus ethey can afford heating, and while there are people living in allys that starve to death then i hope u go to hell because sum people are so poor they would go as far as prostituting their wife and children to make enough money to put food on the table. no one likes to loose money but im just proving that we are the most selfishe people in the world thats all
|
Senior Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 16:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
You're far from proving that they're are more selfish people in the world. But I understand your perspective, I don't agree with it, but I understand it however poorly presented it is.
America shouldn't be singled out for having rich and poor people, every country is like that, and it isn't about to change as far as I can forsee. A good number of 'rich' people donate a considerable amount of money to charity and the less fortunate as well.
Don't blame the players for wanting more money, they're in high demand, and if a large population didn't support baseball then baseball players wouldn't get the salaries they do. I think baseball players deserve the money they get, as long as they perform. I don't believe in the contracts they have, and I think they should be able to be fired just like any other employee that didn't perform as expected. Baseball players are however treated like property, but that isn't for this forum.
We all know the world isn't fair, and that seems to be your main point. I believe record and movie companies get the money they deserve, and have a right to claim the money they lose through piracy. And what a movie or album grosses isn't how much they profit, there are a lot of expenses in creating a movie/album and getting it on shelves in stores. You seem to be forgetting that this money isn't going to just one person, and just as I said before, a million dollars is a lot of money.
|
|
BLeiss2
Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 17:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
i am totally on your side, i wasnt trying to say america is the only greedy country. i do disagree on baseball salaries, but that is for a later time. and i know that alot of people work on movies, and most arent millionaires, but camera man and sound guys arent the ones getting short changed. its the company paying for the movie that takes the largest pay cut from piracy. they are the only ones that get paid depending on sales. and think about the donations ritch people make. after they make them, the go out of their way to let everyone know about it, and it would take a big donation to make any difference. think about if sum1 made a 1,000,000 dollar donation. the charity would take between 2%-6% which is at least 20,000. probably 90% of it will go to shelters (which only gives them food and shelter for a couple weeks) that takes out 900,000. it is estimated that there are 3.5 million homeless in america so about $.02 of what they gave will go to the homeless people to go on a shopping spree. WHOO HOO and if u take out the 920,000 from other stuf then each person gets an astonishing $.28. get 7 more cents and you can afford a lunch sized milk carton. thats amazing!!!
|
Senior Member
|
1. March 2006 @ 21:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now wait a second here, we are talking about El Salvador. We aren't talking about America, Canada, Australia, etc, but El Salvador which is essentially a third world country.
Their average yearly salary is about 4500$, do you think they will spend 25-40$ on a dvd? That's insane.
You don't sell gold to the poor, come on, give me a break.
Its common sense, but I think greed blinds you to that.
|
|
BLeiss2
Member
|
2. March 2006 @ 02:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
thats exactly wat im sayin hot_ice, the only way you can afford to buy a dvd in el salvador is if it is pirated because they would never spend $20 on a dvd
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
2. March 2006 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Then its safe to assume that piracy is a byproduct of greedy corporate film productions.
|
|
