Quote from: trechriron;815404And we have achieved Godwin's law!

Edit: It's like Light Speed but with more uniforms.

Is it really Godwin when the concept of 'you can't just pass the buck and say you were only following orders' was most singlely established as bullshit due to the trials?

Quote from: Will;815406Is it really Godwin when the concept of 'you can't just pass the buck and say you were only following orders' was most singlely established as bullshit due to the trials?

Oh yeah its definitely intentionally a Godwin, but the thing about Godwin is...sometimes its just the right thing to do. There's a reason people use Nazis as analogies; because so often the most horrible aspects of human nature in the 20th century were embodied by that regime, including all the excuses and bullshit rationalization that allowed it to happen.


Now, I'm not sying some random investor in a company should be hauled off to jail because someone else there did some insider trading or something, but anyone who has profited, indirectly or otherwise, off of someone else's misery should be prepared to lose some funds over that. If they were ethical people, they would be offering that money themselves without having to be told by a court to do so.

I also take 'my hands were tied' because with investors and board members and executives, nobody made them do that at gunpoint... If you are in a situation where things can go wrong but 'the system' keeps you from managing things properly... leave or accept the consequences.

Because otherwise you create a huge motive to create and maintain a system where everyone can pass the buck (as has pretty much happened all over)

Quote from: TristramEvans;815410Oh yeah its definitely intentionally a Godwin, but the thing about Godwin is...sometimes its just the right thing to do. There's a reason people use Nazis as analogies; because so often the most horrible aspects of human nature in the 20th century were embodied by that regime, including all the excuses and bullshit rationalization that allowed it to happen.


Now, I'm not sying some random investor in a company should be hauled off to jail because someone else there did some insider trading or something, but anyone who has profited, indirectly or otherwise, off of someone else's misery should be prepared to lose some funds over that. If they were ethical people, they would be offering that money themselves without having to be told by a court to do so.

Because minor investors in a publicly traded company are exactly like SS Guards executing Jews because of "orders."

By this logic everyone is guilty of coutless atrocities. You are personally responsible for every action of every agent and ally of your government. Every drone strike or bomb dropped. You are responsible for slave labor in China, for Asian sweatshops that employee children, and for all the violence and suffering fueled by illegal drugs. It doesn't matter if you knew about it. It doesn't matter if you agreed to it. By your continued existence you are responsible. Is that really where you want to go with this discussion?

The stockholders? No.

The company employees and executives who actually made the illegal or harmful decisions? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Corporations should excuse individual humans from financial responsibility not legal or criminal responsibility.  Eliminate Club Feds and send white collar criminals to ADX or better yet General Population in Angola, think you'll see a little closer adherence to key regulations.

Quote from: Bren;815393What I did insist on is that violating legal copyright is taking from someone. What jhkim and now apparently you can't seem to grasp is the difference between violating copyright which is illegal and using ideas that are out of copyright which is legal. jhkim, and possibly you, seem to have a notion that the ideas articulated by one person are inherently owned in common by their country, society, all mankind, or something and that the person articulating those ideas is allowed some control by society to be nice.

That is roughly correct. In my opinion, ideas are not owned by anyone - because they aren't things to be owned. In fact, this is explicitly stated by copyright law, which makes clear that ideas cannot be copyrighted. For example, if a scientist makes a discovery, then ethically, that scientist should get credit and recompense for their work - but the discovery is not property owned by them.

You're implying that this is some sort of communism, when I would say it is quite the opposite. Modern copyright is about intrusive government regulation - with the government inserting itself deeply into intellectual matters, such as endless lawsuits where juries decide who came up with what, whether a work is an homage or a ripoff, and similar artistic judgement calls.

In life, there are all sorts of times when unfair things happen - where someone doesn't get proper credit for the work they did, and the wrong person gets rewarded. This happens in all sorts of contexts, not just publishing. That sucks, and we should try to see that it doesn't happen. Sometimes government regulation and registration is a good way to see that happen, but it isn't always the best approach.

Quote from: Bren;815393What copyright is not based on is some notion that all ideas are owned in common by society and society is granting a right to the creator to be nice or solely to stimulate the production of more ideas which in turn are automatically owned by society. Copyright is intended to be an exchange of value – protection of the creator's exclusive control of their idea is given by society for a limited time in exchange for the creator granting eventual public access to the ideas which the creator created.

Copyright is fundamentally based on the notion that ideas are not owned. You seem to treat that as a technicality at best.

More generally, under your logic, it sounds like you are asserting that morally, a creator's ideas are his property. Given this, I don't understand what the exchange is. It sounds like the creator is giving up something that they own by moral right, in return for protection. That seems like saying I'll get police protection from burglars in exchange for the government taking my house for public use after I die.

Quote from: jhkim;815422More generally, under your logic, it sounds like you are asserting that morally, a creator's ideas are his property.

They are the creator's invention. That is why the creator is entitled to recompense as even you seem to agree.
 

Quote from: jhkim;815422

Quote from: Bren;815393What copyright is not based on is some notion that all ideas are owned in common by society and society is granting a right to the creator to be nice or solely to stimulate the production of more ideas which in turn are automatically owned by society. Copyright is intended to be an exchange of value – protection of the creator's exclusive control of their idea is given by society for a limited time in exchange for the creator granting eventual public access to the ideas which the creator created.

Given this, I don't understand what the exchange is.

Its in the now bolded portion of the post you quoted.

Quote from: Will;815413I also take 'my hands were tied' because with investors and board members and executives, nobody made them do that at gunpoint... If you are in a situation where things can go wrong but 'the system' keeps you from managing things properly... leave or accept the consequences.

Because otherwise you create a huge motive to create and maintain a system where everyone can pass the buck (as has pretty much happened all over)

Unfortunately "Executive Meddling" is appallingly common. TSR staff would recount this or that problem from on high. Its pretty bad in TV entertainment. Especially when the execs are actually gunning for you and trying to undermine any way they can. Comics was another one where you get the suits having no idea what they are running. WOTC has a track record of meddling when they really shoudnt.

Quote from: Omega;815429Unfortunately "Executive Meddling" is appallingly common. TSR staff would recount this or that problem from on high. Its pretty bad in TV entertainment. Especially when the execs are actually gunning for you and trying to undermine any way they can. Comics was another one where you get the suits having no idea what they are running. WOTC has a track record of meddling when they really shoudnt.

That's what you get when you have a culture of applying generic business techniques (where the goal is solely to maximize profit) to a specific industry/service.  For example, Albion Armorers make quality historically accurate swords using modern techniques but finished by hand.  A few years ago, Howie was looking for capital and an investment manager was telling him how to increase profits by making swords like Windlass, an Indian sword manufacturer that makes swords of far lesser quality.  He didn't seem to get the idea that business techniques are used to improve the product or service and if the product is high quality swords, you don't meet that goal by producing inferior products for a greater margin.

Quote from: Omega;815336God the number of times I've seen someone selling someone elses game under the claim of "fair use". Someone even was selling their copy of 40k under "for educational purposes." Its gotten to the point that those terms have become a flag for stolen or pirated.

If they're selling it, it's not fair use.

Quote from: Will;815403Yeah. I'm kind of the opinion now that everyone in management should be held culpable for the actions of a company. You don't get to pass the buck and shrug and scurry under a rock when investigators come calling.

If you don't want that kind of responsibility, make sure you run things right. And if you can't be sure, go do something else.

Then again, if it were up to me, I'd execute BP's management and all the regulators they bought off publicly, and give a long, meaningful look at all the other oil companies equally shoddily managed.

Yes, BP needs to have its management executed. Meanwhile, we should defend every shitty move by a popular game company because their game product is considered popular?

Quote from: CRKrueger;815434That's what you get when you have a culture of applying generic business techniques (where the goal is solely to maximize profit) to a specific industry/service.  For example, Albion Armorers make quality historically accurate swords using modern techniques but finished by hand.  A few years ago, Howie was looking for capital and an investment manager was telling him how to increase profits by making swords like Windlass, an Indian sword manufacturer that makes swords of far lesser quality.  He didn't seem to get the idea that business techniques are used to improve the product or service and if the product is high quality swords, you don't meet that goal by producing inferior products for a greater margin.

Bad business people are just as common as bad doctors, lawyers, auto mechanics, and authors.

An basic business technique is to figure out if you are making a high value , niche product where you compete on quaiity or if you are making a product that is competing on price in a larger market.

Quote from: Bren;815415Because minor investors in a publicly traded company are exactly like SS Guards executing Jews because of "orders."

By this logic everyone is guilty of coutless atrocities. You are personally responsible for every action of every agent and ally of your government. Every drone strike or bomb dropped. You are responsible for slave labor in China, for Asian sweatshops that employee children, and for all the violence and suffering fueled by illegal drugs. It doesn't matter if you knew about it. It doesn't matter if you agreed to it. By your continued existence you are responsible. Is that really where you want to go with this discussion?

I didn't make money off of anything your government (since thats obviously who you're talking about) or mine did, nor did I voluntarily invest money in any of those endevours to make a profit off of them.

So, no, your reasoning fails.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815463I didn't make money off of anything your government (since thats obviously who you're talking about) or mine did, nor did I voluntarily invest money in any of those endevours to make a profit off of them.

So, no, your reasoning fails.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Canada and the Common Wealth of which you are a member isn't responsible for some terrible actions? Or are you saying that you haven't personally benefited from any of your government's actions? Or are you saying that the only benefit that matters in determining moral culpability is a dividend check in your pocket?

Because you are the person who Godwined the thread and the actions of your government are at least as relevant to a comparison of "just following orders" than the actions of individual stockholders.

Quote from: Bren;815468Are you seriously trying to claim that Canada and the Common Wealth of which you are a member isn't responsible for some terrible actions? Or are you saying that you haven't personally benefited from any of your government's actions? Or are you saying that the only benefit that matters in determining moral culpability is a dividend check in your pocket?

I'm saying not every German was a Nazi. And no amount of goalpost shifting is going to make your argument valid as an analogy for an investor in a company.