coolshirtdotjpg wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:31 pm
luchog wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:46 pm
Big companies stealing from smaller ones? Sure, like Apple, Microsoft and many more. And if they can not steal from you they will buy you out of business.
So that makes it okay? Someone else did it, so there's no reason to do anything about it? Sorry, I just don't find tu quoque
an adequate rationalization. There's no way to get away from Microsoft products if you work in the tech industry, it's entirely impossible; and for home I've only ever paid for two OSes, I've never purchased a single other piece of software from Microsoft. Again, because I don't have any real, viable choice in the matter given the lack of software ports for *NIX operating systems. The only Apple products I own are ones I've gotten for free (stuff being recycled from work), or on the used market, so I"m not giving them any of my money.
First off, tu qouque is only a fallacy if you are using syllogistic logic to argue the truth of a statement.
That's not the only context where it applies. Far from it. It applies to any situation where one is attempting to justify an action by referring to the similar or comparable actions of another party.
I'm personally not opposed to "stealing" ideas that have been known for 40/50 years in some cases. Are you opposed to generic drugs, for example?
Not even remotely a comparable situation, since drugs are protected very differently than circuits are. Drugs are only covered by patent law, and patents are designed to only protect a medication for a specific period of time, after which it becomes public domain, about 20 years. Intellectual property law is considerably different, and covers a wider time range, typically 75-100 years.
Personally, I'm opposed to stealing as a general rule, however people attempt to justify it. It's far too common in too many industries. It only hurts small creators, not larger ones. And in any case, why only at 40/50 years? What makes stealing work that old more acceptable than stealing work that's only 30 years old? Or 20? Or 10?
And it's not ideas that are being stolen, it's work, it's specific designs. When that's done with literature or research papers, it's called plagiarism, and rightly looked down on. Why would this be any different? Someone still put in the hard intellectual and practical work to create a functional design with specific characteristics.
The biggest issue is not that people have a problem with behringer, it's that they get high and mighty about it, and then assume that because they are rich enough to buy something fancier, they get to be smug and morally superior about it. That's basically everything wrong with modern "liberalism", where everyone poorer than you is immoral because they can't afford farm to table, or Moog designs (that are made in china anyway and use chinese manufactured parts).
Straw man and well poisoning fallacies. The issue that people have with Behringer is mainly their use of SLAPP suits to silence criticism of their products, and the highly variable quality of their products, which is the primary motivator for said criticism; and the fact that they have outright stolen designs from other companies, and been successfully sued, or settled suits, as a result. Their theft is a matter of public legal record, as are their attacks on critics.
You don't believe in 'should' and 'deserve', then go on explaining why you specifically deserve nice things.
Nope, that's another one of your straw man fallacies. Learn to read for comprehension instead of just making shit up.
Finally, if you care to do some research you will find that basically all of your favorite mom and pop eurorack companies use chips designed by... Behringer!
Not in my experience, no. My favorite small business and cottage designers use chips designed by Texas Instruments/Burr-Brown (which produces the overwhelming majority of OpAmps used in analog audio), THAT Corporation/Blackmer, Philips Semiconductors, Panasonic, and the now-defunct Reticon Corporation (good luck finding those). Can't find a single instance of a chip designed by Behringer, perhaps you'd be so good as to provide an example.
This is the point I keep trying to make, there is no way of getting away from sweatshops, and giant factories with bad labor practices, under the current economic system,
The point you keep trying to ignore
, which I and others have been making, is that it's possible to reduce
dependence on giant factories with bad labour practices, by cutting back on luxuries produced by said giant factories, and choosing to do business with more ethical manufacturers whenever and to the extent possible. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
you are totally delusional.
Speaking of delusional, maybe start reading what people are saying, instead of inventing straw man arguments, and you'll sound much less delusional yourself.
Maybe instead of spending the extra 400 dollars to feel pride in your moog or whatever, put that money towards a political candidate, or political movement that aims to reform the economic system that put us there.
False dichotomy fallacy. Supporting small businesses and cottage industries is important even when contributing to and supporting political campaigns to change the larger socio-economic issues. Doing large things does not preclude or invalidate doing small things at the same time.
There's nothing that annoys me more than people who think they can consume their way into a better world.
There are few things that annoy me more than straw man fallacies and claiming to know what other people's motives are.