Hey all. I keep seeing the "Lampre man" pic being posted here with the intention of making fun of him.

We have deleted it many times, we have asked many times that people not post it. You guys laugh at it but in the meantime, it's cruel and is considered bullying.

That will not be tolerated.

Keep in mind that his friends are members here (and he might be, as well) so please be careful with what you post. From here on, if this is continually being posted, my team will be forced to follow protocol according to the forum guidelines that you all agreed to when you signed up here.

And that’s a big part of it for me.

Companies that market to the rich or prey on the stupid need not be respected. That means not respecting their copyrights. Companies are big boys, they’ll find a way to make money. And if they don’t...the world will probably be better off.

I bought a $7K+ bike, and I am not filthy rich. Does that make me a fool?

I'm not sure where this argument arose, I guess some people don't see anything wrong with violating copyrights?

But regardless, in your specific example here I think it's relevant that I saw it the exact opposite of your reasoning. The person who would never buy the music, is converting it to his own use (to listen to it) and that's theft, by definition.

On the other hand, if a person WAS likely to purchase it then downloading it could be seen as sampling in consideration of purchase. That would be fine (in my opinion if not legally) as long as he did purchase it eventually if he continued to listen, or else deleted his copy. It's the rationale behind shareware and some types of freeware. If you like it and use it, buy it. However, that all depends on people accepting that it's morally or ethically wrong to simply take and use something and never consider buying it.

That said, I think that trademark and branding has gotten WAY out of hand, and unless a "violation" is a fairly faithful reproduction I lean to the "no harm no foul" camp. The jersey with logos that are suggestive of a famous brand or team, even using some of the same words, I don't see a problem with it.

You never told us what sort of work you do for a living. Will you?

Sure. Sales management.

Something tells me you're the kind of person that keys expensive cars out of spite.

Maybe. But you could do a lot worse than being mad about bikes. You could be mad about designer handbags. :)

Hmmm... Wearing a "fake" team kit, or spending a lot on a real one? Since either would mean one is not actually on the team both seem plenty embarrassing to me. No thanks.

I am not mad about bikes. I had a custom ti frame built for me in the way I wanted it built by the local, sole proprietor I wanted to build it. Sometimes nice things cost a good deal of money.

So you spend your work hours helping people sell goods and/or services? What sort of goods or services?

If there was an easy way to copy the results of your effort, and doing so meant people were unlikely to hire you or anyone else to do what you do, would you feel the same way as you do about my job?

When it comes to cycling jerseys, some see the forest and some see the trees. In other words, I look at the total image as one regardless of the detail so if a team jersey presents a pleasing image to my eye, I’m good with it.

I won’t get in to the knock-off vs. licensed reproduction. That’s for the consumer to justify in his own morality and/or pocketbook.

Luxury cars, if you believe it, lol :)

No I wouldn’t, but that’s becUse you’re changing the argument. There is ALREADY an easy way to copy digital content. So, if you’re asking hypothetically if 25 years ago I would have found it moral to devise an easy way for consumers to copy digital media, I would have said no.

However, that cats already out of the bag. So now you’re left only with deciding whether behavior on the part of the consumer is moral or not. And I stand by my stance that if the cost of media is above what a person would ever be willing to pay, it’s not immoral for them to copy it. They were never part of the market demographic in the first place, so their actions have zero impact on anyone.

And besides, looking at this from a broader perspective, this is the way of the world man. Looking for the universe to get on board with protecting your personal cash cow is a fools errand. That’s YOUR job. Nothing lasts forever; whatever the value of your creation is...it will fade for one reason or another. There’s no use blaming people for it.

So maybe we're not fools, nor filthy rich, but rather richer, in a way, than many would give us credit for being.

Poor people don’t buy custom titanium bikes. I’m not making any kind of determination about your level of filthy richness, but you arent poor. And rich people never think they’re rich. A bit of perspective is important.

I am not poor, but I have no level of filthy richness. If I did, I would not still be working. I have structured my life in a way that cuts many common expenses so that I have some money spend on the things I like. For example, rather than buying a McMansion and living the "American dream" in the suburbs, I bought an old, right-size house that is close enough to work that I can ride (like I did today) or walk. That, in turn, cuts down on the need to buy gas. My current vehicle will turn 2 at the beginning of July. It has about 4,500 miles on it. "I'll bet that at least 1,000 of those miles were put on during four longish trips. Because I am financially responsible and have no debt I qualified for 0% financing. I am 53 and have bought a grand total of one vehicle exclusively for myself. The other I bought for my for my mom back in '95. We shared it until she was unable to drive. Then some idiot kid destroyed it while it was parked.


And how do you know what all rich people think? I am sure Bill Gates (He's wealthy. Oprah is rich. To paraphrase Chris Rock, if Bill Gates woke up one morning with Oprah money he would kill himself.) is quite aware of what he has.

Would you be for or against law enforcement stopping a Chinese car company from selling knock off versions of the luxury cars you help sell? Like, copying the tech, name, styling and everything?

The ease of copying is one of the key features of digital content. There was never a time when that was hard. It will always be easy, and more and more of our work will depend on being able to profit from the creation of it.

No, we don't have to decide if it's moral for a consumer to make unlicensed copies of digital media. We can (and have) decided it is illegal. Laws governing commerce are only tangentially related to morality.

I'm not blaming other people. I'm defending the existence of IP law. Laws against copying IP protect economic activity that benefits society as a whole.

Look, I know nothing about you, I'm not trying to put you down or anything at all. Just making the point that anyone(financially responsible or not...) that is looking at custom titanium bikes is doing just fine, financially, and several steps above what tens of millions in this country are accustomed to.

Yes. That would be for profit, by a for profit company, one of the major factors I noted earlier. My answer would be 100% different if it were just a guy in his garage attempting to fabricate a Mercedes replica from scratch to drive around town, for example.


No issues with this.

There is a difference between "legal" and "moral." I never claimed that unrestricted copying of digital content was legal.

I don't actually think we disagree on much here in practice. I'm not against IP laws either. I think they work quite well. They keep (generally speaking) companies from reproducing content for profit, yet are nearly completely unenforceable on individual people using content for personal use.

Sorry if I gave this the 'moved to P/R' kiss of death lol :o Though it might have been destined for it from the beginning...

What if the Chinese company was a charity and made no profit? All they did was remove the profit incentive for other luxury car marker, which in turn made your job superfluous?

You advocated ignoring copyright law here:

And said IP theft is not theft here:

The law defines unauthorized reproduction as theft. Are you for or against that law?

Then I would be against law enforcement stopping them.

I find it a very grey area if I'm being honest. I disagree with labeling it as theft. As I said above, I am for the law because of what it actually accomplishes, which is to discourage use by for-profit companies. On a philosophical basis, I am conflicted as to the merit of IP laws.

Why the distinction about "for-profit" companies?

IP laws are fundamentally a protection of profits. And profit should not be the end all be all justification of actions. The well-being of people should take precedence. And if this hypothetical charity car maker of yours is doing good for numerous people, the well being of those people take precedence over any profit concerns of auto manufacturers.

Don't profits, by definition, benefit people?