Are you a hypocrite?

[Quast]

Dodge said:

It's one thing to complain about not getting paid enough to just make ends meet, it's something totally different to hear about some spoiled rotten band/pop star crying for more money to line their already ridiculously rich pocketbooks that quite frankly they don't need (in fact, it wouldn't kill them to actually use that money for a good cause or just plain give it to someone else).

No one, no matter how rich, is obligated to give any of their money to anyone

[sargebaldy]

Except the government.

[NiGHTMARE]

And anyone they have previously borrowed money from, or owe money to for some other reason (e.g. paying for a new computer in installments).

[myk]

NiGHTMARE said:
Unless you want the possibility of someone eventually filing libel charges, try to get your facts straight in the future, eh? Personally I'm not inclined towards that sort of thing, but there are a lot of greedy people out there just itching to take advantage of something like this.

I take that as a threat, hypocrite, and I have my lawyer's number at hand. Not only that but now that I look at things you've been involved in half of the projects that've tried to milk the official DOOM name for recognition, i.e. Episode 5 and now a detailed version of Episode 1. I wondered why someone had brought up the sensitive issue of copyrights under a veiled accusation of hypocrisy, especially as a seeming palliative for those who supposedly breach copyrights in the degree they consider okay.

[NiGHTMARE]

I intended it merely as a friendly warning, but if you wish to let paranoia, mistrust and hatred rule your life, so be it. However, if such is the case it can't be very fun to be you :(.

BTW you may be wondering why I brought up such things (see below), but now I'm left wondering why you decided to drag up some old, painful incident which happened many years ago, and in which both parties fully resolved their differences.

I would like to point out that the event in question occured when I was still in my mid teens. You can hardly expect someone of that age to have a full crasp of copyright laws or a fully developed sense of morality, to have been able to learn from mistakes they haven't even made yet, etc, nor can you expect someone now in their twenties to still act and think in exactly the fashion they did when they were a teenager.

The fact copyright is such a sensitive issue, yet so many people consider downloading music, games, films and TV shows to be perfectly acceptable, is precisely the reason I mentioned it. I never accused anyone of being a hypocrite (other than myself), merely inquired as to whether anyone was willing to admit they were. What you just said is rather like claiming the police are accusing everyone in a line-up for a criminal investigation of being guilty.

Finally, how exactly did either Episode 5 or KDIZD try to "milk the Doom name"? With Episode 5 we merely wished to create a new chapter of the Doom story, one which was unofficial but came as close as possible to being official. All intended purely as a bit of fun (imagining what it would be like to make an "official" add-on, but never claiming we were actually making one or trying to achieve that status), with no sinister elements involved whatsoever.

With KDIZD, we merely decided that it was due time for a set of 11 year old levels to recieve a modern update. I don't see you bitching about the "Clasic Doom for Doom 3" mod, yet they're doing precisely the same thing. Almost everyone involved is well known enough in the Doom community (be this for negative or positive reasons) that we hardly need to do anything special for a project we're involved in to be "recognized".

In neither case was there ever any mention of trying to use the work of either others or ourselves to generate a profit, claiming ID were somehow directly involved in the project, or anything else of that nature.

[Quast]

sargebaldy said:

Except the government.

I'm thinking more along the lines of actual people and their personal finances, not institutions.

[Dodge]

Quast said:

No one, no matter how rich, is obligated to give any of their money to anyone

Doesn't that equate to greed?

Seriously, there's no practical use in the world for such things as cavier, fancy bathrobes, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs, and whatever the hell else these yuppie assholes waste their money on other than to indirectly say to the rest of the world, "Hi folks! I've got more money than I know what to do with and I really don't care, so fuck you all and bow down before me!"

I'm willing to bet money (no pun intended) that you said that because you're one of the people I'm talking about and you took personal offense to that.

BTW, I think you're wrong and full of shit, but that's just my opinion. Carry on.

[Amaster]

Jealous much? Or are you a communist (not some stupid insult. Im genuinly curious). I have never had a wealthy person ask me to bow down before them. Have you? Dont you agree that people should be free to do whatever (legal) thing they want with their money and property?

Dodge said:

Doesn't that equate to greed?

What of it?

And dont even think of trying to make baseless, childish assumptions about my financial background.

[NiGHTMARE]

So now aspiring to be earn lots of money is apparently no longer morally or socially acceptable.

Guess I'll have to remember that one.

[Green Gates]

Dodge said:

Doesn't that equate to greed?

Seriously, there's no practical use in the world for such things as cavier, fancy bathrobes, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs, and whatever the hell else these yuppie assholes waste their money on other than to indirectly say to the rest of the world, "Hi folks! I've got more money than I know what to do with and I really don't care, so fuck you all and bow down before me!"

I'm willing to bet money (no pun intended) that you said that because you're one of the people I'm talking about and you took personal offense to that.

BTW, I think you're wrong and full of shit, but that's just my opinion. Carry on.

Really, it all comes down to human nature. Many well-meaning people would be willing to grease the palms of the poor, for example, yet there's always going to be that chunk of them that says "Who gives a f*cking rat's colastame bag what these pricks are going through? I'm blowing this on that mediocre Microsoft product I've always wanted." So people do often feel the obligation to contribute or do some humanitarious act, yet at the same time just the thought of doing that can go against our own will. Often times, the tolerance/intolerance to do things like throwing chump change to some dirty-leather-clad bum off the street can vary depending on the person, their personality, and their environment/life in which they were raised. So degenerates such as Donald Trump or Bill Gates... I believe no further comment is necessary.

Anywhat, I don't think I'll be posting much down here, because the flaming looks like it's getting a little bad. Not that I usually mind that much, but I just get the feeling that this is going to adopt some 'conservatives vs. liberals' background.

[NiGHTMARE]

Besides, even rich people who do donate to charities still get accused of being greedy bastards. Take Bill Gates for example - he's donated billions to those in need, yet vast numbers of people consider him to be synonymous with greed.

[Jehar]

My school is funded by gates co... shoot me now.

But I CAN look foward to him coming to our school. I'll bring a few pies... for starters..

heheh.
hahah.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAH
MUAHAHAH

hah

[Green Gates]

NiGHTMARE said:

Besides, even rich people who do donate to charite still get accused of being greedy bastards. Take Bill Gates for example - he's donated billions to those in need, yet vast numbers of people consider him to be synonymous with greed.

Maybe then the rumors I've heard of Bill Gates weren't true. I get the feeling this is another stereotyping issue. There's always going to be some bending and note-taking between two specific factions/enterprises/corporations/political parties/etc in order to bash the opposing one, so the fact that there's a lot of ramblings about the rich being cheap bastards and the poor being helpless, talentless idiots really doesn't surprise me, the more I look at it.

Jehar said:

stuff

Just shoot them. Sure, the media will blame Doom for the killing (again, like those hypocrites always do), but oh well.

[Jehar]

Through all that I got the impression that you would be able to restrain yourself from pieing the Man.

...
You know you want to.

[Quast]

ok, Che....

Dodge said:

Doesn't that equate to greed?

So maybe it does. So what?

I'm willing to bet money (no pun intended) that you said that because you're one of the people I'm talking about and you took personal offense to that.

I'm rich? Far from it. My family would describe me as something of a miser though. See, everything I have right now, my job, my house, my car, my computers, everything, I have gotten on my own. No handouts in any way from anyone. I had to pay my way through college even. I have and will succeed/fail based on my own merit.

Simply put: is what I have earned not my own?

BTW, I think you're wrong and full of shit, but that's just my opinion. Carry on.

How am I "full of shit" exactly? And I am not wrong, I am stating a fact...as I said: people with money ARE NOT obligated by any means to share their personal wealth with you or I or anyone.

[Stealthy Ivan]

Heh, Hypocrisy is a good band! :P

[Grazza]

Possibly (it's hard to judge oneself), but in terms of the four points raised, no.

On point 1, I don't steal other people's stuff, and I would take legal action in the case of a commercially damaging breach of my copyright.

[Janderson]

Dodge: Why should the rich give to the poor? If they don't they'll be accused of greed, if they do people will say; 'they're only doing that for publicty.' The only people who get recognition for giving to the poor are those who are poor themselves, so let the nuns deal with'em.

Fact is many people who become rich and famous often come from nothing, most of the young ones wish to live their life to the max and the old ones do likewise because they find out they have cancer or something. As Green Gates said it all comes down to human nature.

[Zaldron]

Dodge said:

Seriously, there's no practical use in the world for such things as cavier, fancy bathrobes, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs, and whatever the hell else these yuppie assholes waste their money on other than to indirectly say to the rest of the world, "Hi folks! I've got more money than I know what to do with and I really don't care, so fuck you all and bow down before me!"

Very true.

But in the list of non-practical things you should add : polluting rides in the bus just because you're feeling lazy today, capitalistic music cds of your latest amusing artist, whitened paper via very toxic compounds just so your kids can draw without any spots or stains in the surface, expensive video cards and all the "unproductive" video games, etc. etc.

Luxuries make up for part of the very delicate balance that is your day to day happiness. Try to live a few months eating beans and not giving in to any self-gifts or spoiling, and tell me how much you care about life in general.

I sit here with bigassed speakers that cost a hundred times more than a cheap pair of headphones. Rich people taste wine a hundred times more expensive than the bottles you find at the market. Sure, their expenses seem bloated, but some people don't listen to music, and others never tasted and never will taste wine.

At 23 billion dedicated to charity all around the world, Gates has been more of a benefit to the deprived Humanity than you in the order of several thousand millions of magnitude.

[Jonathan]

1) I would feel somewhat aggrieved at someone else claiming credit for my work, but I also would not claim credit for anyone else's work myself. I would not care about someone copying, modifying or otherwise reusing my works, and in fact would encourage it where possible through the use of a creative commons licence, the GPL , etc.

2) Selling out is not simply about earning money, it is about compromising your principles to do so. I do not care if bands do so, most of my favourite bands are very commercially orientated.

3) No.

4) No.

Seems I'm not a hypocrite.

[Cyb]

NiGHTMARE said:
1) Download commercial music, films, TV shows, and/or games off the internet, but if someone took anything you'd made (e.g. a song, story or game-addon) and claimed it was theirs, you'd make a right fuss about it?

These are different. If I download a song or movie or tv show (which I don't often do any more, tv shows mainly if I miss it when it's actually on), I would not take credit for making it. Likewise, if I had a TV show or movie or CD out and it was being pirated (which is certainly the case with all commercial items that can be copied), I wouldn't put up a fuss about it because there's really not much more that can be done about it.

If someone tried to claim my work as their own I would be mad however, likewise if someone tried to claim anyone else's work as their own (though less since I wouldn't be involved). I know they're both forms of copyright breach, but copyright is a very, very broad term.

NiGHTMARE said:
2) Hate certain bands for being "sell outs", but wish your boss would give you a pay rise (or your parents would give you more pocket money/a larger allowance)?

As has been pointed out, selling out has less to do with money and more to do with changing your principles to make money. If you can get paid to do something that you love, then I have no qualms. If you compromise what you believe in order to make money (bands playing music they hate for instance), that's what's selling out. I don't really have a problem with that either, because it's really hard to make it big and these things are usually controlled by large corporations and you sort of need to bend to fit their image of 'good' if you want that. Some people, likewise, refuse to make changes or do certain things and it ends up costing them more money, and I respect that as well.

NiGHTMARE said:
3) Often write abusive posts on internet message boards, yet know you'd get the s**t kicked out of you if you ever tried anything like that in real life?

Once again I think this is different. First off the internet is in writing, so you have a lot more time to annalize and plan out responses. In real-life conversations you sort of only have a couple seconds and things move on. Similarly, I've gotten into political and such arguments with friends and roommates, but I don't drag it out to stupid proportions as often happens on forums, because I actually have to interact with those people on a daily basis. It's also fun to get into arguments on the internet once in a while just because you can argue with someone you don't know at all that there really aren't any consequences as long as you don't take it so far that you get banned. In real life you can lose friends or family members can stop talking to you. People in real life I talk to because I chose to, people on forums mostly just because they're there.

NiGHTMARE said:
4) Complain if people on an internet messageboard start discussing some perfectly acceptable topic you simply aren't interested in, yet would be the first to take offence if someone else did that in a perfectly acceptable topic you started?

That's actually something that annoys me to no end, and it occurs quite often on DW but the other forums I frequent most (SA and Shacknews) are mostly free of that. For instance any random sports thread that starts up here (and there are few and far between) will undoubtedly have one or two people pop in and say "lol sports suck!" which is great, but if you don't like a certain subject then you can kindly stay the hell out of a thread. For instance, I don't give a rats ass about NIN, so, rather that replying with "lol NIN sucks", I simply don't read the random NIN thread that pops up every month. It's rather simple.

Mind you, I'm perfectly open to a legit opinion on the subject at hand, positive or negative, but if the subject of the thread isn't something you're interested in, then by all means feel free to keep your worthless opinion to yourself.

I'm also sure I've probably been guilty of the last two at some point in my illustrious internet career.

[NiGHTMARE]

Since most people seem to have completely missed what I was getting at with 1), I've rewritten so it's perhaps more understandable :).

I also extended 2) a little as well.

[Fredrik]

It's not a matter of misunderstanding, it's a matter of not agreeing with your erroneous assumption that all things "copyright" are equal.

[NiGHTMARE]

Nothing in this reality is precisely equal (well, except perhaps mathematics, quantum particles, etc), so by your definition there's no such thing as hypocrisy.

But breach of copyright is breach of copyright is breach of copyright. Whether it's owned by some internet geek or some multi-million dollar company is irrelevant.

[Fredrik]

Hypocrisy is inconsistency in how one applies personal values, not inconsistency with externally defined values or structures (though this definition is often used ad hominem in argumentation).

If your personal way to mentally organize concepts coincides with that of the law book (both cases being "breach of copyright"), fine for you. But that's not the case for me. To me, regardless of what the terms for them are, one case is a matter of intellectual honesty whereas the other is a question of economics. In my opinion, one is far more important than the other.

[NiGHTMARE]

Your way of thinking of things seems as though it could justify breaking into some rich guy's house and robbing him blind :P.

[Fredrik]

Stealing and copying are different things.

[NiGHTMARE]

Ah, I assumed you'd see it as "a question of economics" ;).

[Jonathan]

NiGHTMARE said:

But breach of copyright is breach of copyright is breach of copyright. Whether it's owned by some internet geek or some multi-million dollar company is irrelevant.

My not wanting other people to falsely claim credit for my work has nothing to do with it being a breach of copyright, but simply because it is rude. Likewise, I wouldn't claim credit for somebody else's work whether copyrighted or not. This desire for fair attribution is far more basic and intuitive than the modern intellectual property laws. Supporting one and not the other is not hypocritical, even if they both happen to be governed by copyright law.

[SYS]

I'd say everybody's hypocritical in one way or another, and to say that you aren't hypocritical is hypocracy within itself.