The halfway mark between my piracy and software companies...

[Nokes]

I guess it's just a label, but why would you not consider mutualists to be individualists, Franc?

[HighlyAnnoyed]

I don't believe in right or wrong.

So, do you kill people and/or steal from them when it's in your self-interest? If not, why?

[HighlyAnnoyed]

Stealing from Wal-Mart? Who are you stealing from? The non-existing corporate person? That's like saying you can steal from Santa Claus.

Get a grip, Randy. You're out of touch with reality.

This is a pretty retarded thing to say. Corporations have shareholders. Stealing from corporations is stealing from their shareholders. But, I'm sure you already have some standardized anarchist argument why that is not really stealing.

[Dadalama]

I don't believe in right or wrong.

So, do you kill people and/or steal from them when it's in your self-interest? If not, why?

*sigh* Generally no because I like people. I enjoy people being around and happy. But that's no more a moral than whether or not I sleep with guys. It comes from my genes pure and simple (because our species wouldn't do to well with nothing but mass murderers). So we already have a name for "morality". It's called instinct. Everything else is given to us by the collective and should be reviewed and discarded as seen fit.

Now there is situations or people I would kill if I thought I could get away with it. Lots of people to be honest. Few around me. But that's based around that I like to see the world and people around me happy.

Same thing with stealing, if I like the product produced I will add alittle insurance to it being produced more. Unless they actively try and screw me. Then fuck them. I use it as market control. Haha if I could I would steal large quantities of certain things and go find a nice barren piece of land to destroy them in. Because I own equal share in this world as everyone else.

[tism]

This is a pretty retarded thing to say. Corporations have shareholders. Stealing from corporations is stealing from their shareholders.

Corporate shareholders don't own anything within the corporation, anymore than the corporation itself can own anything.

But, I'm sure you already have some standardized anarchist argument why that is not really stealing.

But you have some standardized statist argument why it is?

[Hierophant]

This is a pretty retarded thing to say. Corporations have shareholders. Stealing from corporations is stealing from their shareholders.

Uh... no. Shareholders do not "own" (property: usus+fructus+abusus) the products on the shelves. If they did, they could take it out at any time and use it themselves (usus). Is that seriously what you're saying?

The relation of shareholding to the products is only abusus (more specifically, the right to usury). Abusus alone is not property (usus+fructus+abusus), nor is it possession (usus+fructus).

But, I'm sure you already have some standardized anarchist argument why that is not really stealing.

Tell me who owns the product (for whom the product is a property), and you'll have a point.

[Hierophant]

To be more specific about the latin part:

Usus, fructus and abusus are the three parts of property.
Usus means the right to use an object.
Fructus means the right to get the fruits of that object. (the fruits of your work with that object, like the fruits of a tree you've grown)
Abusus means the right to abuse the object (this includes destroying, selling off, usury, etc)

usus+fructus+abusus= property
usus+fructus= possession

[Beeman1991]

To make a comment about the initial subject....
I could totally see piracy as a viable alternative at this point partially due to the extreme shittiness of CDs
My copy of Deux Ex: Invisible War, as well as my copies of Battlefield: Vietnam and Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth have all crapped out on me. Is the company who sold me this "copy of their intellectual property" going to fix or replace the copy I bought? No? Well then quite frankly if you've given me a less than desirable product that doesn't meet basic functional requirements have you not "stolen" from me?

There are also games that require an internet connection to play. These games are not ONLINE games in the same sort of thread as World of Warcraft... but are... as previously mentioned... games that have been set up by companies to not work unless the server or whatnot that it connects to recognizes it as a viable copy. Spore has pulled this shit on me before and my copy of Phantasy Star: Universe has as well. Furthermore, games bought on Steam are both faulty AND require an internet connection to play... yet many of the games I enjoy are only available (legally) through Steam (or the equally stupid Window's Live arcade.. which is only slightly more bearable). Why has there been a monopoly placed that often hasn't become apparent until one PURCHASES the game (as in the case of the orange box- I cannot find a note anywhere on the case telling me I need to connect to the internet in order to play it.. yet I can't do so without logging on to Steam). Is this not also "stealing"? Damage has most certainly been done as I could not play many of my favorite games adequately or in some cases... at all....
The case did not tell me I would not be able to play the game after spending 50+ dollars on it
If the companies in question can't be bothered to sell me a product that is what one would reasonably expect it to be, why should I buy products from them? If I get a pirated copy of the same game, it does not require that I log on to some stupid server (except in a few cases in which you can make a completely offline profile).
Explain to me why I should submit myself to legally buying a game with a piece of shit taped to it when I can get it for free and without the programmed fecal matter?

[tism]

There are also games that require an internet connection to play. These games are not ONLINE games in the same sort of thread as World of Warcraft... but are... as previously mentioned... games that have been set up by companies to not work unless the server or whatnot that it connects to recognizes it as a viable copy. Spore has pulled this shit on me before and my copy of Phantasy Star: Universe has as well. Furthermore, games bought on Steam are both faulty AND require an internet connection to play... yet many of the games I enjoy are only available (legally) through Steam (or the equally stupid Window's Live arcade.. which is only slightly more bearable). Why has there been a monopoly placed that often hasn't become apparent until one PURCHASES the game (as in the case of the orange box- I cannot find a note anywhere on the case telling me I need to connect to the internet in order to play it.. yet I can't do so without logging on to Steam). Is this not also "stealing"? Damage has most certainly been done as I could not play many of my favorite games adequately or in some cases... at all....
The case did not tell me I would not be able to play the game after spending 50+ dollars on it
If the companies in question can't be bothered to sell me a product that is what one would reasonably expect it to be, why should I buy products from them? If I get a pirated copy of the same game, it does not require that I log on to some stupid server (except in a few cases in which you can make a completely offline profile).
Explain to me why I should submit myself to legally buying a game with a piece of shit taped to it when I can get it for free and without the programmed fecal matter?

Slightly OT but also consider the situation with Sony's PS3 and other consoles.

PS3 is currently under the light because of decisions Sony has made about its support. Recently, Sony has issued firmware updates (which are one-way only, i.e. no reverting to old version after upgrading) which remove OtherOS (a feature that is commonly used to run Linux on PS3) as well as removing support for un-licensed third-party equipment.

On top of that, if you don't update your firmware, you are forever locked out of the playstation network (no on-line play) and future games that come out may require the newer firmware meaning you wouldn't be able to play them. I'm not sure if there are games yet shipping with the firmware that removes OtherOS, but I do know it is possible. I have seen games in the past which require a certain firmware version, and the game disc includes it and requires you to install it. So it is always possible that a newer game will ship with and require the new firmwares which removes the features mentioned above.

That leaves a PS3 owner with a decision. Keep OtherOS and un-licensed controls while losing online play and new games, or keep online play and new games but ditch OtherOS and un-licensed controls.

Not to be a FUD-master, but this is entirely a result of engaging in use of devices in which control is maintained by the corporation that sells it. But this isn't a new thing for PS3. Virtually all consoles I'm aware of have had licensing requirements for developers. Want to develop games/controllers? Buy a license and be forced to play by the rules... An analog for PCs would be if game developers had to pay Microsoft to be allowed to make games that run on Windows (let's assume the developers are using OpenGL and other free development tools & libraries and not even using MS tools...), would that be fair? Are we supposed to expect that console makers are special and must be a gate-keeper to the console?

Back in the Nintendo Entertainment System days, you couldn't make a game that contained "profanity." Nintendo wouldn't allow it on the console. Games which originated in Japan were edited when they were translated into english, to remove elements which Nintendo USA thought were profane (like death).

Why buy crap from companies who want to control your access to the software you can run on it? We don't do it for PCs so why do we allow it for game consoles? Is it just a matter of historical momentum?

Although it isn't just about the game consoles but all electronic devices. Automobile service systems like "On-Star," for instance, are also lock-in devices just like a game console. When you buy an automobile with such equipment, you aren't allowed access to change the service provider, it's just "On-Star." You don't like On-Star anymore? You cancel it and then have no service for the auto equipment. The little button on the mirror turns into an ugly blemish.

Satellite television: same deal. (I am no fan of broadcast television but it is something I see all the time...). Where's the generic satellite receiver equipment that will just let the user subscribe/watch whatever they want? Why is it just "Dish Network" 100 channels or "Direct TV" 100 channels, each with their own boxes? For that matter, say you just liked HBO and nothing else, how the hell does one get it without buying five times as many other channels you will never use? I've heard that there is HBO on internet broadband, but the situation there is no better because to have access to it, you must have internet access through the cable company in your area that offers HBO on television...

So sorry, this is turned into a general rant about any/all electronic devices & media which have lock-in. It just doesn't make sense to me.

To me, a new car which comes with On-Star and Sirius radio service is like getting a PC that comes with all that trialware installed... Though with the PC you can always wipe it and install Linux without ever opening up the box. To replace the services in your car requires replacing hardware, because the hardware is locked in to the service. Same with game consoles, satellite broadcast, etc.

It's madness.