?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
Face-plant - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
Face-plant

Face-plant
Originally uploaded by ABMann
I know my day was better when I saw a child fall face-first onto stone.
But I'm a jerk.

A big, self-ish, child-free jerk.

Looks like the Mac Mini is the best option as the hub for a media center.
now, storage. There are waaaaay too many options. O_O

Ethical question to any and everyone:
Is it immoral/illegal/unethical to rip/clone/duplicate DVDs I've bought and then sell/lend/give-away or generally get rid of said DVDs?
4 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
madisonmassage From: madisonmassage Date: September 25th, 2007 03:50 pm (UTC) (Link)

Moral relavatist

Morality is relative. If you burn or give away a dvd to some one who has a tight buget, I say go for it. Especially if the DVD/CD is from a major studio/label. Now if you are burning a cd for some one with spare cash, and that cd is a local/non-major label artist well I'd say not so good.

I'll burn compliation cd's of stuart davis (non major label muscian), but I write his website on the Cd and ask people to buy at least one of his cds in addition...

BTW whatcha doin on friday?

A good brazilian samba band is playin the brink lounge...
pagee go go

abmann From: abmann Date: September 25th, 2007 03:59 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Moral relavatist

So.. for you it equates to the potential loss in revenue for the affected party? The loss of income is worse for as local artist and small recording studio versus the loss to, say, Universal Studios when I clone and sell a movie they made.

lady_fox tends to be our schedule keeper. :) I'm not sure if she's planned anything currently. Where is Brink?

madisonmassage From: madisonmassage Date: September 25th, 2007 04:05 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Moral relavatist

Yup, morality to me is about the amount of harm or good being done.
I would say the amount of good being done giving some one on limited funds a dvd or cd out weighs the damage being done to the major label/studio.
A small time artist eeking out a living by internet sales of cds and local shows would be more affected by pirate actvities...arrrrrhhhh

the brink is in the same building as the high noon and the brass ring on east washingon ten blocks or so off the capital.

http://www.thebrinklounge.com/music.shtml
http://www.pageegogo.com/

Later bunny man
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: September 25th, 2007 08:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
The morality of the given situation is no different from that of you downloading the movie instead of buying it. It's not immoral for you to download the movie, so it's not wrong for you to do what you've suggested.

It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of the transaction.
If you don't buy the movie, you gain nothing and lose nothing and the producer gains nothing and loses nothing. This is the base outcome by which all other outcomes are judged.
If you do buy the movie, you gain a movie and lose money and the producer gains money and loses nothing.
If you download the movie without paying for it, you gain the movie and lose nothing and the producer gains nothing but also loses nothing.

You can see that not paying for the movie has no impact on the producer over you just not getting the movie. Whether you download the movie from someone else or just don't ever see the movie, the dealing between you and the producer is exactly the same, none. Thus, the producer has no right to expect money from you.

Nobody has the right to get money for something that isn't a service or a good just because they have asked for it. It is a person's right to be paid a per unit wage for the work done and the goods produced. It is not anyone's right to be paid in perpetuity for something that amounts to neither service nor product and that can be reproduced infinitely with zero cost or loss. I don't care how poor the person is, it is ethically wrong to expect you to pay for something that has zero unit value.

If you buy the DVD in the first place, you have done enough in giving money to the distributer for providing you with the service and product of selling you the DVD. If they don't provide you with anything, then you have no need to give them money. It is their job to implement a proper business model where they get paid for the actual services provided instead of trying to guilt you into giving them money that they don't deserve.
4 comments or Leave a comment