65 replies to this topic

[sillyeddie]

I'm not saying I've done this, but some Sabres fans might have been watching the games online at one of this guy's sites and now the federal government has shut up to 16 of these down and arrested a guy who they think ran as many of 9 of them. Among the more notable of the sites are the firstrow sports ones where many fans have been getting their Sabres fix.

http://www.reuters.c...E8111UD20120202

[d4rksabre]

sillyeddie, on 02 February 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

I'm not saying I've done this, but some Sabres fans might have been watching the games online at one of this guy's sites and now the federal government has shut up to 16 of these down and arrested a guy who they think ran as many of 9 of them. Among the more notable of the sites are the firstrow sports ones where many fans have been getting their Sabres fix.

http://www.reuters.c...E8111UD20120202

It's okay. There are still many out there, including a new first row sports that showed up this afternoon. If you know how to find them, they'll always be there.

[TheChimp]

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

[d4rksabre]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

Good for you. I don't like not being able to watch Sabres games on the only cable provider I'm allowed to get at my apartment complex.

[SDS]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

Actually, you are much less popular than you think.

[billsrcursed]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

You should be careful with the word "theft". It means something completely different from what you are using it for. Nobody is stealing the Sabres. They're still on the ice. This is simply taking an already existing feed and showing it to others for free.

Now if you had said it's preventing someone or some group of making money, then perhaps you'd be correct, but then who's to say that those prevented from viewing online would then pay for it instead... this goes deeper than most would care to know about.

BTW, I pay for CI every year. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate a little. There's always another side to the story.

[SwampD]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

I somewhat agree. With the NHL, there is absolutely no reason not to get Game Center. It is a great service at a great price.

Now, on to Sunday Ticket. While I have had it for two years now, IMO it is a complete ripoff. Crappy feeds, half of the features don't work, no highlights in theair highlight section and it's double the cost of GC. I won't be getting it next year.

[Neo]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it."

[TheChimp]

SDS, on 02 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Actually, you are much less popular than you think.

Did you not understand what you highlighted?

[d4rksabre]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Did you not understand what you highlighted?

I think he understood it just fine.

[TheChimp]

d4rksabre, on 02 February 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

I think he understood it just fine.

I don't. And perhaps neither did you. I said that I probably couldn't be any less popular than I already am, and he says that I don't realize how unpopular I am.

And by the way, d4rk, you act like I don't sympathize with your plight. I absolutely do sympathize with your plight, and fervently hope that you contact your politicians or join your local Occupy group and join with those of us already working to get our government to start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act the way it was intended to be used. Believe me, I understand that it's a pain in the rear to get our elected officials to actually do the things they promise us working slobs they are going to. You have no idea how well I understand that. I mean, I'm just a stupid, hated ape around here. But I know people you can get in touch with if you want more choice of cable providers. Just ask.

[d4rksabre]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I don't. And perhaps neither did you. I said that I probably couldn't be any less popular than I already am, and he says that I don't realize how unpopular I am.

And by the way, d4rk, you act like I don't sympathize with your plight. I absolutely do sympathize with your plight, and fervently hope that you contact your politicians or join your local Occupy group and join with those of us already working to get our government to start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act the way it was intended to be used. Believe me, I understand that it's a pain in the rear to get our elected officials to actually do the things they promise us working slobs they are going to. You have no idea how well I understand that. I mean, I'm just a stupid, hated ape around here. But I know people you can get in touch with if you want more choice of cable providers. Just ask.

What the hell are you talking about?

[TheChimp]

d4rksabre, on 02 February 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

What the hell are you talking about?

You said: "Good for you. I don't like not being able to watch Sabres games on the only cable provider I'm allowed to get at my apartment complex."

I was responding to that. Forget it.

billsrcursed, on 02 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

You should be careful with the word "theft". It means something completely different from what you are using it for. Nobody is stealing the Sabres. They're still on the ice. This is simply taking an already existing feed and showing it to others for free.

Now if you had said it's preventing someone or some group of making money, then perhaps you'd be correct, but then who's to say that those prevented from viewing online would then pay for it instead... this goes deeper than most would care to know about.

BTW, I pay for CI every year. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate a little. There's always another side to the story.

Inviting a bunch of friends over to watch the game is one thing. Sharing your cable feed with thousands of people on the internet is another. Again, I hate price gauging and lack of choice in my services. Deregulation at its finest. Still too many people not getting that, but that's beside the point. All I'm saying is, anarchy isn't my way. That's all. Makes me feel like a lazy ass.

[SDS]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I don't. And perhaps neither did you. I said that I probably couldn't be any less popular than I already am, and he says that I don't realize how unpopular I am.

This is for the slooooooow people on the board:

For as UNpopular you think you are I can assure you that you are even LESS popular than that.

[nfreeman]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

Neo, on 02 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it."

I agree with you both on this.

d4rksabre, on 02 February 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Good for you. I don't like not being able to watch Sabres games on the only cable provider I'm allowed to get at my apartment complex.

I totally empathize. However, you could still get Gamecenter online, right? And then you'd have a better picture, more features, portability, etc. at a pretty reasonable price, and you'd be doing the right thing (IMHO) -- and not exposing your computer to phishing, viruses, spyware, etc.

billsrcursed, on 02 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

You should be careful with the word "theft". It means something completely different from what you are using it for. Nobody is stealing the Sabres. They're still on the ice. This is simply taking an already existing feed and showing it to others for free.

Now if you had said it's preventing someone or some group of making money, then perhaps you'd be correct, but then who's to say that those prevented from viewing online would then pay for it instead... this goes deeper than most would care to know about.

BTW, I pay for CI every year. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate a little. There's always another side to the story.

Holy straw man Batman! Did anyone say anything about stealing the Sabres?

This just sounds like a rationale for excusing something that everyone knows is both wrong and against the law.

Here's one way to think about it: if the games weren't on TV, and the only way to see the games were to go to the arena and pay for a ticket, but someone offered to sneak you in the fire door so you could watch the game from the catwalk, and you knew if you were caught you'd be cited for trespassing and your facilitator would be arrested -- would you do it? Would you think it was right for you to do it?

SwampD, on 02 February 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I somewhat agree. With the NHL, there is absolutely no reason not to get Game Center. It is a great service at a great price.

Now, on to Sunday Ticket. While I have had it for two years now, IMO it is a complete ripoff. Crappy feeds, half of the features don't work, no highlights in theair highlight section and it's double the cost of GC. I won't be getting it next year.

I haven't bought Sunday Ticket for several years, but it's because of the Bills and their complete abdication of any responsibility to field a competitive team.

[shrader]

SDS, on 03 February 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

This is for the slooooooow people on the board:

For as UNpopular you think you are I can assure you that you are even LESS popular than that.

I wish you'd post more.

[billsrcursed]

nfreeman, on 03 February 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

I agree with you both on this.



I totally empathize. However, you could still get Gamecenter online, right? And then you'd have a better picture, more features, portability, etc. at a pretty reasonable price, and you'd be doing the right thing (IMHO) -- and not exposing your computer to phishing, viruses, spyware, etc.



Holy straw man Batman! Did anyone say anything about stealing the Sabres?

This just sounds like a rationale for excusing something that everyone knows is both wrong and against the law.

Here's one way to think about it: if the games weren't on TV, and the only way to see the games were to go to the arena and pay for a ticket, but someone offered to sneak you in the fire door so you could watch the game from the catwalk, and you knew if you were caught you'd be cited for trespassing and your facilitator would be arrested -- would you do it? Would you think it was right for you to do it?



I haven't bought Sunday Ticket for several years, but it's because of the Bills and their complete abdication of any responsibility to field a competitive team.

I think the argument is that it shouldn't be against the law. And no, I wouldn't sneak through the fire exit, I'd go to a buddy's house, which is basically the same thing as watching online. Sneaking into a private establishment is a little different than watching an already offered telecast.

[d4rksabre]

nfreeman, on 03 February 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

I totally empathize. However, you could still get Gamecenter online, right? And then you'd have a better picture, more features, portability, etc. at a pretty reasonable price, and you'd be doing the right thing (IMHO) -- and not exposing your computer to phishing, viruses, spyware, etc.

I could, but I don't feel like spending more money. I understand it is for totally selfish reasons, but I don't see watching pirated web streams as something I need to feel morally guilty about. The web streams aren't a primary source of income for the NHL and my watching on someone elses dime isn't hurting their business. It's not really any different than going over to a buddy's house to watch the game.

The music industry for me is different. Having music available to buy on iTunes has really changed my opinion on pirating music. I wont buy pop music or anything I know someone is making tons of money off of, but if I want a Fred McDowell album, or something by a band I know really needs that album sale money, I'll buy it. I'm not above that, because I like good music to prosper.

I just don't feel bad in any way about watching pirated web streams.

Edited by d4rksabre, 03 February 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Eleven]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I could, but I don't feel like spending more money. I understand it is for totally selfish reasons, but I don't see watching pirated web streams as something I need to feel morally guilty about. The web streams aren't a primary source of income for the NHL and my watching on someone elses dime isn't hurting their business. It's not really any different than going over to a buddy's house to watch the game.

The music industry for me is different. Having music available to buy on iTunes has really changed my opinion on pirating music. I wont buy pop music or anything I know someone is making tons of money off of, but if I want a Fred McDowell album, or something by a band I know really needs that album sale money, I'll buy it. I'm not above that, because I like good music to prosper.

I just don't feel bad in any way about watching pirated web streams.

There's also this: GameCenter is not an option for Sabres games if you live in Buffalo. I'd pay for it if it were.

[d4rksabre]

Eleven, on 03 February 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

There's also this: GameCenter is not an option for Sabres games if you live in Buffalo. I'd pay for it if it were.

A good practical point as well.

[SwampD]

nfreeman, on 03 February 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

I haven't bought Sunday Ticket for several years, but it's because of the Bills and their complete abdication of any responsibility to field a competitive team.

Sorry, I should have said Sunday Ticket To Go.

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I could, but I don't feel like spending more money. I understand it is for totally selfish reasons, but I don't see watching pirated web streams as something I need to feel morally guilty about. The web streams aren't a primary source of income for the NHL and my watching on someone elses dime isn't hurting their business. It's not really any different than going over to a buddy's house to watch the game.

The music industry for me is different. Having music available to buy on iTunes has really changed my opinion on pirating music. I wont buy pop music or anything I know someone is making tons of money off of, but if I want a Fred McDowell album, or something by a band I know really needs that album sale money, I'll buy it. I'm not above that, because I like good music to prosper.

I just don't feel bad in any way about watching pirated web streams.

Moral issue aside, which I don't really care about, what you get with GC is worth every penny.

[TheChimp]

SDS, on 03 February 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

This is for the slooooooow people on the board:

For as UNpopular you think you are I can assure you that you are even LESS popular than that.

Oh I get it now, duh. You were just risking redundancy to be nasty. Thanks!

[nfreeman]

billsrcursed, on 03 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I think the argument is that it shouldn't be against the law. And no, I wouldn't sneak through the fire exit, I'd go to a buddy's house, which is basically the same thing as watching online. Sneaking into a private establishment is a little different than watching an already offered telecast.

How can that possibly be the argument? Someone spent time and money to produce a broadcast. How can they possibly not have the right to sell it how and when they see fit, and not to have it stolen from them?

OK, you wouldn't sneak into the game. If someone drilled a hole in the roof, snaked a camera in there and ran a cable to your house, would you watch it? Would you feel entitled to watch it?

If there was a new book in the bookstore that cost $25 that you wanted to read, and someone offered to photocopy it for you and bind it so that it was pretty close to the actual book, would you think that was OK?

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I could, but I don't feel like spending more money. I understand it is for totally selfish reasons, but I don't see watching pirated web streams as something I need to feel morally guilty about. The web streams aren't a primary source of income for the NHL and my watching on someone elses dime isn't hurting their business. It's not really any different than going over to a buddy's house to watch the game.

The music industry for me is different. Having music available to buy on iTunes has really changed my opinion on pirating music. I wont buy pop music or anything I know someone is making tons of money off of, but if I want a Fred McDowell album, or something by a band I know really needs that album sale money, I'll buy it. I'm not above that, because I like good music to prosper.

I just don't feel bad in any way about watching pirated web streams.

So...you get to decide when the content owner has made enough money on something, and when they've crossed that threshold, it's OK to help yourself?

I know this sounds judgmental, and I apologize for that. We all have our areas in which we cut corners or rationalize things. But I don't think these rationales (not just yours) intellectually hold water. I think intellectual property is property, and taking someone else's property is just that -- no more, no less.

Eleven, on 03 February 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

There's also this: GameCenter is not an option for Sabres games if you live in Buffalo. I'd pay for it if it were.

Now this goes along way towards justifying taking matters into one's own hands.

[d4rksabre]

nfreeman, on 03 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

So...you get to decide when the content owner has made enough money on something, and when they've crossed that threshold, it's OK to help yourself?

I know this sounds judgmental, and I apologize for that. We all have our areas in which we cut corners or rationalize things. But I don't think these rationales (not just yours) intellectually hold water. I think intellectual property is property, and taking someone else's property is just that -- no more, no less.

It's a judgment I choose to make. Rich people don't need my money, I need my money.

[Tyrannustyrannus]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Did you not understand what you highlighted?

Did you not understand that your avatar is an Orangutan? Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[TheChimp]

Entitlement is indemic.

Tyrannustyrannus, on 03 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Did you not understand that your avatar is an Orangutan? Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Very few of the avatars I have chosen for myself are actual chimpanzees.

Edited by TheChimp, 03 February 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

TheChimp, on 02 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

I don't think I can actually be less popular than I already am around here, but I'm gonna risk it and say outright that I never liked Napster and I don't feel good about not paying for cable. I don't like the monopolies these music companies and cable and dish dealers have on the marketplace, and thus the customers, but I see these things as a problems to be solved through political action and some sweat equity. I see these things as theft as much as the industries appear to.

Neo, on 02 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it."

I agree ...

If something is wrong, plain and simple, it's just wrong.

[d4rksabre]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 03 February 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I agree ...

If something is wrong, plain and simple, it's just wrong.

Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

It's a judgment I choose to make. Rich people don't need my money, I need my money.

The ever popular "eat the rich" mentality.

I'm sorry, but news flash ... the poorest of the poor in North America and Europe are far richer that the vast majority of everyone else, everywhere else.

[d4rksabre]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 03 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

The ever popular "eat the rich" mentality.

I'm sorry, but news flash ... the poorest of the poor in North America and Europe are far richer that the vast majority of everyone else, everywhere else.

What's your point.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc.

I disagree.

Do you think the people that are committing crime and / or conflict (conflict is usually brought on and encouraged by people in a leadership position who want something and who know how to get it ... by using people and that is wrong) don't think it is wrong? As for debate that is not right or wrong in the same way ... debate is good as it is a disagreement on some issue or other not disagreement as to right and wrong.

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

What's your point.

You're rich to a vast majority of the planet's population.

[TheChimp]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Not true. Morality is socialized. What one person believes is wrong is not the same as another. If everyone agreed on what is right and what is wrong there wouldn't be conflict, crime, debate, law, etc.

Soilent Green is people!!!

[d4rksabre]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 03 February 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

I disagree.

Do you think the people that are committing crime and / or conflict (conflict is usually brought on and encouraged by people in a leadership position who want something and who know how to get it ... by using people and that is wrong) don't think it is wrong? As for debate that is not right or wrong in the same way ... debate is good as it is a disagreement on some issue or other not disagreement as to right and wrong.



You're rich to a vast majority of the planet's population.

As far as your first portion, yes, I believe many criminals do not believe what they do is wrong. Human beings are rational or at least limited rational creatures. We are capable of balancing the costs and benefits of our actions. Take an example of a mother trying to feed or clothe her child. She may be poor, working two jobs, and still not be able to afford food off of what the government provides. So she can justify stealing food or diapers because in her mind what she is doing is no longer wrong. Once you've made the decision to commit any kind of crime, you have inherently decided that this crime is the correct choice. It might be wrong in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the individual.

Your second point still needs clarification, because as it stands it makes no sense with the current discussion.

TheChimp, on 03 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Soilent Green is people!!!

And it's delicious.

[shrader]

Neo, on 02 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm with you. My desire to have something doesn't trump someone's ownership of it. I'm not preaching, but you're not alone. I pay for six iTunes accounts. My kids' friends tease me. My kids "get it."

Doesn't iTunes allow you to save files across X number of devices? I see where you're going with this, but if they're being shared within a household it's really no different than one kid borrowing another's cd.

[billsrcursed]

nfreeman, on 03 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

How can that possibly be the argument? Someone spent time and money to produce a broadcast. How can they possibly not have the right to sell it how and when they see fit, and not to have it stolen from them?

OK, you wouldn't sneak into the game. If someone drilled a hole in the roof, snaked a camera in there and ran a cable to your house, would you watch it? Would you feel entitled to watch it?

If there was a new book in the bookstore that cost $25 that you wanted to read, and someone offered to photocopy it for you and bind it so that it was pretty close to the actual book, would you think that was OK?



So...you get to decide when the content owner has made enough money on something, and when they've crossed that threshold, it's OK to help yourself?

I know this sounds judgmental, and I apologize for that. We all have our areas in which we cut corners or rationalize things. But I don't think these rationales (not just yours) intellectually hold water. I think intellectual property is property, and taking someone else's property is just that -- no more, no less.



Now this goes along way towards justifying taking matters into one's own hands.

I truly understand what you're saying, I do. Your scenarios just aren't the same as watching an already made available broadcast, IMO.

Its no different than me inviting 15-20 friends over to watch the game, again just my opinion.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

As far as your first portion, yes, I believe many criminals do not believe what they do is wrong. Human beings are rational or at least limited rational creatures. We are capable of balancing the costs and benefits of our actions. Take an example of a mother trying to feed or clothe her child. She may be poor, working two jobs, and still not be able to afford food off of what the government provides. So she can justify stealing food or diapers because in her mind what she is doing is no longer wrong. Once you've made the decision to commit any kind of crime, you have inherently decided that this crime is the correct choice. It might be wrong in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the individual.

Your second point still needs clarification, because as it stands it makes no sense with the current discussion.

As to your first point ... I can see that rational as you outlined it, but deep down I would think that person still knows right from wrong. Truce, OK.

My second point addresses your assertion that ... "Rich people don't need my money, I need my money". I took that to mean that you do not see yourself as rich, but in reality you are very rich as compared with the vast majority of the planet's population. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It certainly would not be the first time I have ever misunderstood someone's point in a discussion.

[weave]

I don't really care if someone is pirating a broadcast. Well, I would care if it was *my* broadcast. But really, the issue is well covered in copyright and trademark law. And there is nothing grey about it. If you are the trademark (or copyright) owner of an electronic media then you get to set the terms in which people can use it.

If you are going to obtain and use someone else's copyright/trademarked E-media in a way they haven't authorized I won't judge you. But it is pretty darned silly to try and rationalize it as OK when clearly there is plenty of precedent and law that indicates otherwise. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use whether it is a song, video, automobile, or patented design.

Edited by weave, 03 February 2012 - 04:59 PM.

[d4rksabre]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 03 February 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

As to your first point ... I can see that rational as you outlined it, but deep down I would think that person still knows right from wrong. Truce, OK.

My second point addresses your assertion that ... "Rich people don't need my money, I need my money". I took that to mean that you do not see yourself as rich, but in reality you are very rich as compared with the vast majority of the planet's population. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It certainly would not be the first time I have ever misunderstood someone's point in a discussion.

I understand that I am rich by comparison, but my richness is relative to the economic structure I live in. My decision to stick it to loaded pop musicians by not buying their music (that I generally don't like or see any value in purchasing) is relative to where I stand in relation to them. They do not need my money. Just like a sheik doesn't need a poor Iranian's rice dinner. I'll spend my money supporting local restaurants where I know the wait staff appreciates my tips, or supporting a local musician who uses the cover charge to buy strings for his guitar. I recognize not only how fortunate I am, but that there are places where I think my money is better spent when I do spend it.

Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them.

[TheChimp]

I haven't played Scruples in a long time, but this would make a great question.

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 03 February 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I understand that I am rich by comparison, but my richness is relative to the economic structure I live in. My decision to stick it to loaded pop musicians by not buying their music (that I generally don't like or see any value in purchasing) is relative to where I stand in relation to them. They do not need my money. Just like a sheik doesn't need a poor Iranian's rice dinner. I'll spend my money supporting local restaurants where I know the wait staff appreciates my tips, or supporting a local musician who uses the cover charge to buy strings for his guitar. I recognize not only how fortunate I am, but that there are places where I think my money is better spent when I do spend it.

Watching a pirated web stream of a hockey game or not buying the new Coldplay album is what allows my favorite waitress at Jay's diner to put gas in her car. If it is morally wrong of me to be taking someone's property for free then fine, but it doesn't keep them or me up at night because they live just fine without the extra $10 I didn't spend on them.

And that is fine and dandy. But none of this makes it "right" or "OK". At the end of the day it is still unauthorized use. If you are OK with it then don't color it as something else.