Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The entitled generation....Are they right?

<< < (12/12)

Lashiec:
I'm beginning to think this entire debate is a "generation thing."
-40hz (May 03, 2009, 04:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

Don't. It does not have anything to do with new vs. old generations, and more with what each person considers the 'right thing to do'. My oldest brother is probably part of your generation, and he would agree with your friend's daughter (regarding the part of getting culture without paying for it at least, never had a discussion with him over the ethical issues and everything else). So does many people of his generation, heck, even much older people, like sgtevmckay said.

Your friend's daughter sounds to be in the "I'm fighting the system" school of thought, which is just another way to justify something that can't be justified. Most people I know fall in the "They have enough money" camp and, of course, "If it's free, why not?". I'm not saying the current system is cool and nice, quite the opposite, but citing fair use to share a song with a friend when you mean downloading entire discographies (effectively redefining "fair use") is not helping anyone.

That said, there's probably some fairness depending on what you're getting for free. I never considered to be a crime or even something questionable from an ethical point of view to grab an album of certain group to know them, or to grab movies or TV content because they're unavailable in your region. Many people do that (including myself) and would gladly pay for it if there was some other way to get it. It's simply a way of taking advantage of technology to overcome old hurdles that content distributors (and creators sometimes) continue to have in place. In a world like ours nowadays, things like regional restrictions do not make sense at all. As I said before, everyone is getting it (with music, the issue is practically settled thanks to Amazon, iTunes or Spotify), so good for them and for us.

But trying to downplay artists relevance compared with the rest of us is quite unfair, even more considering that it's not always their fault all these things are happening, although judging by comments here and there this is where the majority is trying to make us believe. I wonder how we reached this point, that is, it's perfectly acceptable not to pay for something you like and want. I assume these people do like or would like to be paid for their jobs, it's the logical thing in our society. How is it any different with culture? You have to pay for all those hours in the studio working on your new songs, and film crews do have a salary. Probably no one part of the entitled generation cares to think about it (age-wise, I'm supposed to be part of it as well :-D)

Seeing as everyone is probably about to jump all over me, I should point out that we (myself, and the people I know) still DO buy software. Lots of kids play World of Warcraft, and buy the expansions + paying for the monthly subscription. Last Friday I overheard two Mac kids in my English class talking about the girl's new "copy of iLife '09 in a bundle with Leopard." In regard to myself, a good example is that I have purchased every copy of Need for Speed I have in my possession (Undercover was not worth it though >:().
-wreckedcarzz (May 04, 2009, 10:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

Bad examples, really :). While you can play WoW in private servers thus not paying for the subscription, you're missing all the fun on public ones. And I ignore how the girl got his copy of Leopard + iLife, but IIRC it comes bundled with Apple computers, so those two cases show how people will pay for something if there is no other way to get it (WoW and an Apple computer, respectively). Actually, every Mac user I know has iLife but no one paid for it.

Also, I wish I didn't click on your link >_<

40hz:
I'm beginning to think this entire debate is a "generation thing."
-40hz (May 03, 2009, 04:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

Don't. It does not have anything to do with new vs. old generations, and more with what each person considers the 'right thing to do'.
-Lashiec (May 06, 2009, 06:34 PM)
--- End quote ---

Possibly true, hence my post just above yours. ;D 8)

Lashiec:
Possibly true, hence my post just above yours. ;D 8)
-40hz (May 06, 2009, 10:42 PM)
--- End quote ---

D'oh! :)

CodeTRUCKER:
I'm beginning to think this entire debate is a "generation thing."
-40hz (May 03, 2009, 04:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

Don't. It does not have anything to do with new vs. old generations, and more with what each person considers the 'right thing to do'. My oldest brother is probably part of your generation, and he would agree with your friend's daughter (regarding the part of getting culture without paying for it at least, never had a discussion with him over the ethical issues and everything else). So does many people of his generation, heck, even much older people, like sgtevmckay said.
...
-Lashiec (May 06, 2009, 06:34 PM)
--- End quote ---

I am not comfortable with a blanket, "Don't."  Here is why...

What is being debated here is a "learned" behavior, but only to degrees.  What I mean is we come into this world kicking and screaming totally unaware that others worth consideration are present.  Consider for a moment how selfish those cute and cuddly infants really are to everyone around them?   What if, instead of being a tiny infant, reproduction was based on an "organism division" (like cell division) where the "baby" emerged as a full-grown physical body, but did not have the maturity to regulate itself?  Shelley's "Frankenstein" gives us a glimpse into this.  Imagine if the "child" wanted the hot skillet.  How would this adult-sized "toddler" respond to your well-meaning, loving and emphatic, "No!  Do not touch! It will hurt the baby!"  The answer is that "baby" would do what every other baby does.  He/she will use everything in its power to get what it wants, only this time the "baby" is as big as you and with no moral restraint.  Not a pretty sight!  The "baby" would not have any qualms in destroying you if it means it could get what it wants.  The "baby" has to learn to be considerate of others.     

The partial statement, "... what each person considers the 'right thing to do...." is what I am specifically referring to.  My "baby" mentioned above has not yet learned the "right" thing to do and those around suffer for it.

Now, in regard to "...the 'right thing to do..." if the preceding generation does not help the succeeding generation (or in some cases, visa-versa) to learn how to be considerate of the rights of others, the only natural outcome is for the succeeding generation to become accustomed to having their own way.  Unless checked, this behavior will find its way into the essence of their being.  They will, in fact, be convinced that they can have whatever they want and no one had better say, "No!"

I do agree that this can not be over-simplified to an "us versus them" in regard to generations.  That would be bigoted prejudice, but to nullify the cause-and-effect relationship from one generation to another is problematical to grasping the essence of this discussion. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page