daytripper23 said:

The internet is an historic rebound in the spectres of economic idealism:

Once it was the capitalist who rejected the contrived idealism of marx, in favor of the "natural" seizure of assets/property. With the realization of the internet though, this ethical situation is mirrored. Of this one time "ideal" metaphysic, one could positively say that the ideal has been materially realized as information. To that there is no more material burden than the bitrate of the stream!

Or one could say in the negative on the other hand, that the notion of asset/property central to capitalist ideology, being positively dependent upon material reality, is reduced to absurdum. That is to say, it has now become the absurd burden of the capitalist to posit or construct his idealism in face of the "disappearance" of material conditioning. The "bitter truth of material human nature", or "the best we can practically realize" (if not quite just), has become a moralistic plea in the new found need to posit this material condition. That materiality is not of nature though, as the natural medium has inverted this condition. Material conditioning is now the contrived idealism of the market demand. Thus the capitalist now expects us to imagine these burdens of material, or even go so far to program limitations into the natural medium. In other words, it now has the burden of a constructed, rather than "natural" ethic.

But when people say "information is free" they are not talking about any subtle opposing or underlying sense of justice, as say, the Capitalist was in "fair exchange" to the Marxist. They are not speaking of justice, but of what is simply and evidently free - materially, or spatially. So while the pirates may demonstrate a "natural seizure" that perfectly reflects the incentive once held dearly in the rhetoric of the capitalists, it isn't followed with the relative deprivation of property for others that became the chauvinistic sentiment, a violent sense of "honor", and finally the "justice" that the capitalists cling to. It is simply the copying of information that is out there, an extension of the mind and memory.

So the capitalist's sentimentality is now seen for what it really is, and always was. A positive sentiment for materialism. We may now observe the culmination of capitalistic fetish: the utter imagination that information is somehow actually owned. That idealism was always present in their ethic, but now we have come to a practical realization of it, by turning that same ideal on its head, through the advent of technology. Now we see that same ideal through the same material lens, as an empty and impotent vessel of moralistic sentiment. Yes, the capitalist is no longer the grim, but practical and realistic naturalist, but the chiding moralist who can now only cry "Repent sinners!"

The genealogy of ideals/morals, as rhetorically constructed:

Marxist sentiment

to

Capitalist (sentiment)

to...?

---

Nice masturbatory session.

Portraying the advent of the Internet as a historic, momentous occasion in which there is occurring a grand reversal of positions between two polar stances on economic ideals, such as property, is just a bit out of touch with reality, IMHO.

There's always been a distinction between physical property and intellectual property, and, regarding intellectual property, its always been a question of usage rights.
Questions such as "can this other company use this catch-phrase slogan?", or, "I invented the schematics for this object, should other people be allowed legally to replicate its design for commercial purposes?" have been around long before the Internet ever materialized.

What has changed, other than the fact that the configuration of computers and the Internet provides a form through which it is much easier for information to be propagated?
You refer to how it is only "the copying of information that is out there", but this is patently disingenuous, most obviously in cases of proprietary software, because the information isn't simply being copied, but it is being modified to make its contents accessible despite the terms of usage that had been set by the creator.

It'll remain to be seen how society and its conceptions of usage rights as it pertains to information will change as a result of the influence of the Internet.
The simple fact that, until now, there's been a proliferation of the current legal stance on usage rights being ignored doesn't equate into some grandiose upheaval in the order of ideology.
Its the same old preexisting debate, in which material possession isn't even a factor, since its always been recognized that it is a matter of intangible assets.

Aizen-sama said:

We all need to pay rent/mortgage/tuition, not everybody has �200  to piss away on a few lines of code.

---

Simultaneously, we all need to pay rent/mortage/tuition; not everybody has the time to piss away creating a "few lines of code" (pointless diminution I should think). Hence, the debate.

Icelander said:

---

Or just old.

fireworks_god said:

daytripper23 said:

The internet is an historic rebound in the spectres of economic idealism:

Once it was the capitalist who rejected the contrived idealism of marx, in favor of the "natural" seizure of assets/property. With the realization of the internet though, this ethical situation is mirrored. Of this one time "ideal" metaphysic, one could positively say that the ideal has been materially realized as information. To that there is no more material burden than the bitrate of the stream!

Or one could say in the negative on the other hand, that the notion of asset/property central to capitalist ideology, being positively dependent upon material reality, is reduced to absurdum. That is to say, it has now become the absurd burden of the capitalist to posit or construct his idealism in face of the "disappearance" of material conditioning. The "bitter truth of material human nature", or "the best we can practically realize" (if not quite just), has become a moralistic plea in the new found need to posit this material condition. That materiality is not of nature though, as the natural medium has inverted this condition. Material conditioning is now the contrived idealism of the market demand. Thus the capitalist now expects us to imagine these burdens of material, or even go so far to program limitations into the natural medium. In other words, it now has the burden of a constructed, rather than "natural" ethic.

But when people say "information is free" they are not talking about any subtle opposing or underlying sense of justice, as say, the Capitalist was in "fair exchange" to the Marxist. They are not speaking of justice, but of what is simply and evidently free - materially, or spatially. So while the pirates may demonstrate a "natural seizure" that perfectly reflects the incentive once held dearly in the rhetoric of the capitalists, it isn't followed with the relative deprivation of property for others that became the chauvinistic sentiment, a violent sense of "honor", and finally the "justice" that the capitalists cling to. It is simply the copying of information that is out there, an extension of the mind and memory.

So the capitalist's sentimentality is now seen for what it really is, and always was. A positive sentiment for materialism. We may now observe the culmination of capitalistic fetish: the utter imagination that information is somehow actually owned. That idealism was always present in their ethic, but now we have come to a practical realization of it, by turning that same ideal on its head, through the advent of technology. Now we see that same ideal through the same material lens, as an empty and impotent vessel of moralistic sentiment. Yes, the capitalist is no longer the grim, but practical and realistic naturalist, but the chiding moralist who can now only cry "Repent sinners!"

The genealogy of ideals/morals, as rhetorically constructed:

Marxist sentiment

to

Capitalist (sentiment)

to...?

---

Nice masturbatory session.

Portraying the advent of the Internet as a historic, momentous occasion in which there is occurring a grand reversal of positions between two polar stances on economic ideals, such as property, is just a bit out of touch with reality, IMHO.

There's always been a distinction between physical property and intellectual property, and, regarding intellectual property, its always been a question of usage rights.
Questions such as "can this other company use this catch-phrase slogan?", or, "I invented the schematics for this object, should other people be allowed legally to replicate its design for commercial purposes?" have been around long before the Internet ever materialized.

What has changed, other than the fact that the configuration of computers and the Internet provides a form through which it is much easier for information to be propagated?
You refer to how it is only "the copying of information that is out there", but this is patently disingenuous, most obviously in cases of proprietary software, because the information isn't simply being copied, but it is being modified to make its contents accessible despite the terms of usage that had been set by the creator.

It'll remain to be seen how society and its conceptions of usage rights as it pertains to information will change as a result of the influence of the Internet.
The simple fact that, until now, there's been a proliferation of the current legal stance on usage rights being ignored doesn't equate into some grandiose upheaval in the order of ideology.
Its the same old preexisting debate, in which material possession isn't even a factor, since its always been recognized that it is a matter of intangible assets.

---

The only reasons one could argue against Free Information is either if one is not smart enough to use a system that allows one to make a living from the sharing of information without forcing each user to pay for it, or one is simply unable to see through the propaganda that is present nearly everywhere.

daytripper23 said:

Who is imagining something more, a sentiment and morality to dress this undifferentiated bitrate?

---

desant said:

This has been teeth gritting, heart racing, hair loosing issue for about 6 months now..

Ever since i made a "pact" with some spiritual entities.. i am now not allowed to download any films or music or anything thats not free...

Not even a bloody Dreamweaver, i have a wirez version of studio 8 from 2006 ... but im not allowed to use this

I looked at online prices of Dreamweaver and it ranges from £200 and up.... 100 for a student edition

WTF

im thousands £ in debt and they want me to pay industrial prices for software, so i can STUDY

Im getting the fuckin shakes just trying to think about all this

---

Cynosure said:

For example, let them know that you are going to download the software illegally and put it to good use (school/bettering yourself) and will save cash and, eventually, purchase it.

---

yes yes yes

Ive thought about that

Noteworthy said:

How specific exactly was this deal??

---

Icelander said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Soounds like you are looking for a way to rationalize theft. If you look hard enough, you will come up with some lame reason to justify it.

If you spent many thousands of hours developing something, would you want people to take it for free so that your compensation for hard work and time is minimized?

I developed a program that took me 10 years and I made about 5 cents an hour because of piracy. Guess how many other similar programs I developed?

---

---