Virtual Spending and a comment on our Digital Future.

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Didn't know where to post this.
Oh the huge manitee!

As you've just taken a swipe at a few random aspects of consumerism without any point or any logical connection and made a reference to a protected sea dwelling mammal, I'd say TCN or After Hours are the best places for this post.

You can discuss DRM and online gaming in the Games fora.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yes but there are a few aspects of it, greed being the essential. You've just posted here without commenting much on the issue which i kind of expected it being the Humanities forum. I might ask for it to be moved to games.

What exactly is the issue? Greed? It's not clear what you want to say, other than that greed exists. I agree with you, it does. Do you have another point to make?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Not many heads floating about here. There is a point. Where does it stop? Wheres the point where they can say too much? There is none. The suits cash in and the piss trickles down the ladder, making it just another job for the ones at the bottom. Do they question this? The Lawyers, the GM's at WOW and those ****s that created the rootkit code. How do they feel about the issue?

Or is it all the paycheck?

Producers charge a fee for their services, which consumers can choose to pay for or not if they like. The alternative is stealing the services, which is illegal.

As regards anti-piracy moves, they are entitled to do this to prevent people stealing their software.

joenailface wrote: »

I would say that the question 'Why is humanity so rotten' a philospohical question and as such is applicable to be posted here, try look beyond your blinders there pal and read what's being said. The point of it is not that they are including DRM in music, the point is that it should be up to the artist whether their music has DRM in it, while most would agree they are almost universally excluded from the process and it is entirely handled by people who have done absolutely nothing in order to make this music and all they done was let an artist borrow some money on the chance that they'll pay it back if they get famous. BUT these are people who are directly (yes directly) due to their greed responsible for the deaths of millions of people due to starvation, preventable diseases, DIRTY WATER, government induced and sponsered droughts and famines as was the case in 1845 when american indians actually came to our aid instead of 'our government' You think your aparthy will result in impunity however these people want more and more and more money, so much money that we ordinary people have none, ideally they want slavery and we are walking closer and closer to that goal every day (some would say already there) I believe what the OP was trying to point out was the unbelieveable lack of logic in buying furniture made of pixels to put in the living room inside your playstation, whoever cant see that that is stupid is looking at the wrong forum

That is not at all clear from what the OP is saying, that is just your interpretation of it. I also disagree that what he (or you) say is in any way an argument to suggest that humanity is rotten. I did try to look beyond my blinders (I think you mean blinkers) but the OP's post is so rambling and incoherent that people (like yourself) can agree with him, but no rational alternative can be put forward to disagree with his points (because they are so mired in his rant).

I doubt you can directly link the people the OP rails against to any "starvation, preventable diseases, DIRTY WATER, government induced and sponsered droughts and famines" other than in a generic "capitalism is bad because some people are rich and others are dying".

Finally, I disagree with you on a philosophical level - people are free to spend their money as they please. It is not for you or the OP to say that people are stupid to spend money on e-furniture if it makes them happy, no more than it is within the power of a non drinker to say people are stupid to spend money on alcohol. KLF made the point that if they want to burn a million pounds, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Likewise, while I don't see the point in spending my money on e-furniture, so long as we live in a free market, I will defend the rights of other people to do so if they should wish.

I think if you read some of my other posts, I am far from apathetic (not aparthic), and I don't wish to be kept immune (not impugned - I impugn your argument) all I ask is that the OP explain what exactly he takes issue with, so that if I disagree with it (and I probably will seeing as how he wishes to deny people their right to choose how to spend their money) I can debate that with him.

Finally, let's not forget that the OP is dealing with electronic enteratinment goods which are a luxury, not a necessity. It's hardly as if you have rich landlords starving the peasants now is it?

joenailface wrote: »

Well seeing as you're so fond of your english skills let me put it like this. RETARD ALERT The point of it is that people are entitled to spend money however they like, however what people want and morality rarely intersect and you my friend are just arguing for the sake of it which makes you oh so much more retarded than your average retard. See now im using words you dont have to look up.

Hold on a second, nowhere does the OP make the argument that what people want rarely intersects with morality. You will have to expand on this point, as I don't see anything immoral in wanting food, shelter, clothing & companionship, which consists of the majority of human wants in my view. I also fail to see how someone who has enough food, shelter, clothing & companionship and has some money left over is immoral by spending it on computer games if that is how they want to spend it.

joenailface wrote: »

Then you shouldn't be participating in this conversation or posting on this forum. If the concept of greed not being amoral confuses you perhaps you should go grow gils and walk backwards into the sea.

With respect, only moderators are entitled to say what is and is not suitable for this forum.

Your double negative (greed not being amoral) confuses me as you seem to be arguing the point of greed not being moral rather than greed not being amoral. In any event, the argument that greed is immoral is familiar to me, and in certain instances greed can be seen as immoral, but it is glib to suggest that this is axiomatic. I don't accept that selling e-furniture or insisting on being paid for your copyright is immoral greed. It is just another example of someone selling their wares for a profit. As regards, the people who purchase such items, they are free to purchase them or not according to their own desires, and if you don't like that then fair enough, you don't have to buy these items. Equally though, you cannot stop other people from buying them if they so wish.

Also, if you wish to convey your point, feel free to do so. Trying to insult me does not further your argument and I do not have to fill in the gaps in your argument or make your argument for you.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its rampant and its accepted and theres no stopping point? I assume you are still going to ask what the point of this thread is.

Well you don't have to accept it and you can try to stop it. For one thing, I have no interest in purchasing e-furniture and I would guess that most people wouldn't buy it either. So it doesn't really affect everyone. However, there is a market out there for people to spend money on if they wish, and I don't see a problem with that.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Wow, so the Producers are infallible because they are the only medium and the hefty slice they make being more than the Artist can dream of isnt greed?

The producers are not infallible, they like every other trader are at the mercy of the market. If no one buys, they don't make any money. Also, they are not the only medium for the supply of electronic entertainment goods. For example, look at linux which is a free software movement, or how about the countless bands that put their music on the internet for free download? These artists eschew the big profits of the larger distributors in favour of providing a quality free service. So producers are not the only medium and they will only survive so long as they have a marketable product.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

At the cost and dismay of the consumer? Look how well Independant games like Audiosurf did when the were released. As far as i know it didnt have ****ware attached to it.

This is a good example of people voting with their wallets. A lot of gamers are refusing to purchase games with overly restrictive copy protection. I've never heard of Audiosurf, but if it did well as an independent game, surely that supports my argument about how there are alternatives and that the market will choose what it wants.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I asked that question in the CT forum and my reponse was that helping these folks doesnt benefit anyone. Your basic human wants that were listed are fine, everyone should have them. Regardless of what country the live in. Its only "third world" because the people with the power do nothing while whinging about their ecomomy or spending trillions on warmongering.

It was the other poster who mentioned these things, and I still think that his point is a bit far fetched in that I don't think he can directly link virtual furniture to the deaths of millions of people.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Rambling and Incoherant? It seems that you were able to comprehend what i was saying, you just didnt get the point. Whats so incoherant? I asked the question "where does it stop" numerous times in my OP.

I'm not sure what you are ultimately trying to convey. I understand the things you point to, and accept that you don't like them. But I don't accept that society is beholden to the producers of electronic & computer entertainment. I also don't accept that they are immoral in trying to make a profit by selling things that people want. I don't want any of the things you mentioned so maybe I can't relate to it, so perhaps I'll use iPods as an example. Your standard iPod comes with no accessories, so if you want to recharge it from a normal socket or get any of the other features, you have to pay extra. A bit sneaky, as I'd expect as a very minimum to get a recharger with something I pay €2-300 for. However, it is up to me whether I want to: a) buy the iPod & pay extra for the charger, b) buy an alternative to the iPod which comes with a charger as standard or c) not buy any portable mp3 player at all. There is nothing immorral about Apple selling the iPod without the charger; they say these are the terms on which we sell our iPods - take it or leave it. No one holds a gun to my head and says you must buy an iPod.

The other reason I don't get your point is that I'm not sure whether you are complaining about the behaviour of these companies as market players or whether you are making a more general point about our consumerist culture.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Greed is IMO essential or even central when discussing issues of humanity.
Edit: Oh and Technology is too. It was also a thread on the future of digital media.

No they are not. Greed & technology are but two aspects of life. As regards the future of digital media, why do you see this as a bad thing? I don't see anything different in paying for a digital media service and a real world service, and again, if people are willing to pay money for these services, what is the problem? Would you, for instance, sleep better at night if I, instead of paying €10 to download a virtual music album, paid €10 to get a haircut?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Edit, tbh if you want to keep arguing do I have a point then im just not going to be bothered. Also if you want the thread out of Humanities because you think it doesn't belong here, request it or report the thread to a mod.

I'm not, but you have to make your point clear otherwise it is hard for people to understand it.