A Question For My Fellow 30+ers - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2006, 12:27 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I wonder where they learn that stuff. Oh, that's right. Television.

We try and view all shows our kids want to watch. Most of the stuff on Nickelodeon involves kids who don't respect their parents, and parents are portrayed as idiots who can only make it through life with help of their children.
No way.
I'm not buying this.

I don't care what is on tv; parents have a responsibility to teach their children the difference between what's on television and what is expected of that child in the real world.

Blaming tv/video games/movies for children becoming stupid, lazy, insubordinate, liars, cheaters, and/or disrespectful is a pathetic cop-out. If a parent sees their child becoming any one of these things it is up to them to intervene. Why do some parents think it's okay to blame media and not themselves for how their children turn out?
__________________

__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 12:35 PM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:17 PM
I said "where do kids learn this stuff". Do you think parents teach them to be disrespectful? Or is it a combination of parents who abdicate their role together with television filling the void? It is not an automatic "one or the other" situation.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 12:36 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:17 AM
You know what's intresting to me?

(1)That downloading music illegally has found its way into this thread

(2)That none of the people who told me that I don't even have a right to edit my legally obtained version of King Kong for my own viewing have said a darned thing about people here who admit to downloading music without paying for it.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 12:45 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I said "where do kids learn this stuff". Do you think parents teach them to be disrespectful? Or is it a combination of parents who abdicate their role together with television filling the void? It is not an automatic "one or the other" situation.
Given my profession, I have seen first hand that some parents do indeed teach their children to be disrespectful, but that's besides the point here.

If a child learning how to behave by watching television and a parent doesn't attempt to intervene, hasn't that parent failed somewhere?

I'm not sure what you mean by "It is not an automatic one or the other situation."
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 12:46 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 03:17 AM
May be a point there, 80's. I suspect that we all might be harder on what we don't do than what we do, which might be part of the point of this thread and numerous threads on FYM.

I plead guilty.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 12:46 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Why do you feel so personally persecuted, 80s?

And downloading music "illegally" is not so clear cut. Remember not everyone on the planet is an American.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Federal Court of Canada's ruling in 2004 which stipulated that:

* Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.

* Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.

The record companies appealed in 2005. The original ruling, btw, was upheld then.

So why would I be outraged here?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 03:19 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Why do you feel so personally persecuted, 80s?
I don't feel "personally persecuted". I just find it very strange that some people think that I shouldn't even have the rights to edit my own copy of something, when I'm not depriving the owner of any money, yet say nothing about people who are indeed depriving the owner of money.

Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
And downloading music "illegally" is not so clear cut. Remember not everyone on the planet is an American.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Federal Court of Canada's ruling in 2004 which stipulated that:

* Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.

* Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.

The record companies appealed in 2005. The original ruling, btw, was upheld then.

So why would I be outraged here?
Forget about whether your country has deemed it "illegal" or not and think of the ethics of it.

Also, put yourself inthe shoes of the person it affects - the songwriter/performer/copyrightholder, etc.

You are a songwriter. You make a living selling your songs. Someone buys your song then places it on the internet to give away. Someone downloads your song from that site for free, and you don't get your money. Is that ethical?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 04:32 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Forget about whether your country has deemed it "illegal" or not and think of the ethics of it.
Well, you're the one who started talking about the illegality of it, not ethics.

Quote:
Someone downloads your song from that site for free, and you don't get your money. Is that ethical?
No, I don't believe it is.

I wish the music industry would have caught on 10 years ago instead of whining about it. When Napster and initial file sharing emerged, they were completely unwilling to compromise or to open their horizons to digital music and where the world was heading. Had they put up something like iTunes back then and started selling songs for 10 cents, who knows whether the culture today would be entirely different. We will never know.

There are tons of things that may be questionably ethical but aren't illegal that people participate in every day. Downloading is just one in a sea of such actions.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 05:57 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Well, you're the one who started talking about the illegality of it, not ethics.
That's because "illegal downloading" is what had been talked about here. That's the reason I framed it in terms of legality. You started talking about something that wasn't even being discussed - non-illegal downloading. However, the ethical principles remain the same.

Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


No, I don't believe it is.

I wish the music industry would have caught on 10 years ago instead of whining about it. When Napster and initial file sharing emerged, they were completely unwilling to compromise or to open their horizons to digital music and where the world was heading. Had they put up something like iTunes back then and started selling songs for 10 cents, who knows whether the culture today would be entirely different. We will never know.
I wish they had, also. But as you'll probably agree, what they did has no impact on whether it's right or wrong for people to steal the songs, and some people (not you) will use that as an excuse to download illegally.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 09:41 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Yes, many can, but not "any problem", which in the context you placed it, means "all problems".

Many times, kids who are raised by their parents with certain values, through exposure to kids who were not, do not reflect the parent's values.

The nieces I am talking about aren't "bad" kids at all, but I can definitely see instances in which they do not reflect the way in which they are raised.
You're right. That was my last post of the night and it was 3 A.M. Through the haze of exhaustion, I had the sense that that part of the post wasn't put well.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 09:59 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
You know what's intresting to me?

(1)That downloading music illegally has found its way into this thread

(2)That none of the people who told me that I don't even have a right to edit my legally obtained version of King Kong for my own viewing have said a darned thing about people here who admit to downloading music without paying for it.
Yeah, I thought about that too. I think you correctly identified the "political" undertone if not of the court decision itself, certainly of the ensuing discussion. Even though I side against Clean Films, I saw the double standard you implied there.

I would point out thought that no one said you should be prevented from editing your OWN copy of a film. I think the issue was with a company doing it for a profit.

Anyway, I think you've done more to implicate yourself with "the rest of us" as those who sometimes operate in those "borderline" areas, but justify why we are doing so. You don't want to see films that aren't cluttered up with the abuse of God's name and that is your justification for purchasing a product that is being sold under questionable legal and ethical circumstances (at least since the court decision that you reported in that thread).

But when the issue is slightly different and it's someone else skirting the law, you sounded much like your opponents in the DVD thread:

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Forget about whether your country has deemed it "illegal" or not and think of the ethics of it.

Also, put yourself inthe shoes of the person it affects - the songwriter/performer/copyrightholder, etc.
I think Bonosaint's point is a good one. It's easier to critique others on ethical issues that we're not guilty of or that don't affect us personally.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 10:02 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:17 AM
But what about speeding?!?

Or do we not want to talk about it because we're ALL guilty!

Aren't we putting others on the road in danger when we speed? Isn't that morally wrong? Weren't the speeding laws created for a reason?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-19-2006, 10:10 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
But what about speeding?!?

Or do we not want to talk about it because we're ALL guilty!

Aren't we putting others on the road in danger when we speed? Isn't that morally wrong? Weren't the speeding laws created for a reason?
Well that's just the thing I was saying earlier - most of us do unethical or questionably moral things regularly. Downloading music might be the easy target, but speeding is a great example. How many people spend hours on the internet at work while they are on company time? How many of us have gone and taken a 2 hour lunch so we could go to the mall or something similar?

For example, I don't have any P2P music software on either of my laptops, and I don't miss it. But I do use BitTorrent to download a TV show I missed - I'm a student, can't afford a PVR, seems like the easiest thing to do. So I'm not going to go claim some moral high ground in one instant and then cross it in another.

I don't know what to say about this generational gap. I am in my late 20s, so I guess I'm part of the new bad seed.

But if you asked my father, who is 57, he would equally scoff at those in their 30s or early 40s for the same thing that people on this thread are scoffing at us. From your perspective, the younger generation is always worse.

When I walk into Abercrombie and Fitch and see 9 year old girls walking around in haltertops that say "SEXY" and "SLUT" (I'm not kidding), I want to throw up. I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, when I was a little girl, our mothers weren't dressing us like that, but I don't know if I'm just getting old or what's going on here. I don't understand why a 10 year old kid needs a $400 cell phone with more monthly minutes than I do (clearly not for emergencies), why an 11 year old needs a pair of $250 Uggs or why every second kid is on Ritalin.

So I don't think there is some huge chasm at the magical age of 30. Every 10 years you go up and down, you'd see similar comments. I don't think that teenagers who are 10 years younger than me are anything like I was when we were growing up. So being grouped together with them seems odd. It just goes to show we all have our generational biases.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-20-2006, 03:59 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean



I would point out thought that no one said you should be prevented from editing your OWN copy of a film. I think the issue was with a company doing it for a profit.
The majority of people were taking issue with a company doing for a profit.

But there were indeed some who said that I shouldn't even have a right to edit my own legally obtained copy. I can dig it up for you, if you'd like.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-20-2006, 04:06 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Anyway, I think you've done more to implicate yourself with "the rest of us" as those who sometimes operate in those "borderline" areas, but justify why we are doing so. You don't want to see films that aren't cluttered up with the abuse of God's name and that is your justification for purchasing a product that is being sold under questionable legal and ethical circumstances (at least since the court decision that you reported in that thread).
I haven't bought one since the court decision. I don't like what the court decided, but now that they've made that decision, I'm gonna live by it.

Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
But when the issue is slightly different and it's someone else skirting the law, you sounded much like your opponents in the DVD thread:
There is a big difference between the DVD issue and the downloading issue. That difference is money. No one was out any money by me purchasing DVDs that had been edited for content, because the editing company bought an original copy for every edited version they sold. When people download music illegally for free that is available to buy, that is depriving the music owner/artist, etc. of money.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com