Slashdot Mirror

Not a single game *I've* ever seen has declared its sim-king to be morally skilled by a moral maze of moral obstacles... maximizing the goodness of all at the sacrifice of the fewest violations of principles

You have no clue what your talking about do you? The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend. What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral? These are matters that to this day have not been agreed upon, and you want a scoring system based on it? Ridiculous. The media will latch onto any angle they can get to sell advertising. If that means they will crucify video games one minute for being to violent and teaching our children to kill, and they will crucify them the next for attempting to force a moral ruleset on them. You cannot win that fight. And companies looking for a profit don't want to pick it.

Now the fruits are falling off the tree in larger numbers (Columbine). The game industry needs to find a book somewhere (SOMEWHERE) and realize what exists outside a gun's barrel... what the consequences are for asking everyone to enjoy being a Barbarian for an hour. Rome falls.

Quit getting your numbers from the media, they are over sensationalizing things to sell advertising - that's it. Check out the numbers , especially chart 1.1 where you can clearly see the amount of fatal violence going down. The real problem lie in those children, and their parents. If you are susceptable to being turned into a killing machine from a video game, you are one weak willed fool. If your parents didn't teach you the difference between pretend and reality, then they suck as a whole.

Don't give me the bullshit that "Everyone Knows Its A Game". The evidence is mounting high right in that article that more than a few take the metaphor very seriously... and our current political shift... blowing off debt and lives without care... show it is growing indeed. Shallow, mindless politics from shallow mindless ethics.

Everyone does know it's a game. Just becuase someone takes the metaphor seriously doesn't mean that they will actually go out and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Rational people don't do that. They realize that in order to make the world as they see fit, that would probably be the most efficient and quickest way, but probably not the BEST way. Even you are exhibiting behavior, unilaterally deciding what politics are shallow and what ethics are mindless. In a free society if somebody wants to watch football all day, ruin their credit, and vote the way they want - they can. You seem to abhor that behavior, and allude to anyone who behaves in this manner as inferior. Am I to assume that if given the chance to change things you wouldn't? And how would you realistically do that without becoming a facist?

All the games referred to are huge, complex body count simulation systems to tell a story.

That's the point, they are cathartic. I love my tactical stealth games and squad shooters because I NEVER WANT TO ACTUALLY DO THAT SHIT! I would like a decent simulation though where the only person who gets hurt is a non-existent internet man. A bunch of ones and zeros fabricated from someones mimagination and brought to life through a console conduit. To say that this type of material in the hands of an adult is going to be the downfall of our rome is assanine. Rome didn't fall because the actors were putting on violent or Facist plays. It fell because a small handful of power weilders tried to manipulate the whole for thier own gain - and that mentality did not come from any media they ingested.

You say we are reducing crime with harsher sentences, but we have the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world. What should we make of the fact that we have 80% more people in jail than the global average (and leading Canada by 84%)? Are just better at catching people? Then there is the fact that yearly prisoner intake is increasing steadily. Of course, that said, I am not sure how to interpret that the incarceration rate has slowed. I would also like to point out that just because violent crime is going down (as your data demonstrate), it does not indicate that crime as a whole is decreasing. Case in point: we have more and more white collar crime that (largely) goes unpunnished. Your assumption, by the way, that harsher sentencing is a direct contributor is likely erroneous. Take Finland’s admirably low crime rates and note their justice system utilizes lighter sentences which focus on rehabilitation (I will cite a source after I get to work ;).

You say we are reducing crime with harsher sentences, but we have the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world. What should we make of the fact that we have 80% more people in jail than the global average (and leading Canada by 84%)? Are just better at catching people? Then there is the fact that yearly prisoner intake is increasing steadily. Of course, that said, I am not sure how to interpret that the incarceration rate has slowed. I would also like to point out that just because violent crime is going down (as your data demonstrate), it does not indicate that crime as a whole is decreasing. Case in point: we have more and more white collar crime that (largely) goes unpunnished. Your assumption, by the way, that harsher sentencing is a direct contributor is likely erroneous. Take Finland’s admirably low crime rates and note their justice system utilizes lighter sentences which focus on rehabilitation (I will cite a source after I get to work ;).

There are also plenty of cases where breaking the law is not "wrong", so we cannot treat this as an absolute either.

Actually, there are very few. I suspect most people go through their entire lives without encountering a situation where their conscience compels them to break the law. For most people the task is to follow their conscience and not break the law.

However, I think we as a society need to do a few things (which come to mind) if we are to have any success in reducing crime.

We as a society have just had a fair amount of success in reducing crime and it didn't involve any of things you suggested. Longer sentencing and a lower unemployment rate seem to have been the answer. A lot of people only obey the law out of fear of getting caught and punished.

In any case, if you want to reduce crime, the very first thing to do is obey the law yourself. You get no points for not embezzelling millions of dollars from your company unless you are a CEO.

violent crime spreading like untamed wildfire

That would be nice, if it was true: here's a link to get started

I agree with just about everything else in the post. The decision of whether a child is mature enough to participate in any activity should be left up to the parents of that child. However, even parents can't be there 100% of the time. That's why we have preventive laws (concerning drugs, alcohol, guns, etc). Why is it so different for a law to limit sale or rental of video games?

I'll admit that I haven't seen the actual contents of the law. There may be something in there that may make me feel different.

The 10th circuit does not a supreme court decision make. Unfortunately for both of us, until they rule collective vs. individual this is mostly academic. I still say it's judicial activism and not what the founders meant nor intended for even today's society. Please see: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm I'd definitely like to continue this further but I am off for the weekend. TGIF!

Sure, gaming didn't hurt you. But that's a sample size of one.

OK, then let's talk about a larger sample size...let's say: the entire United States of America. Violent crime is at a record low in this country. The most recent generation to reach adulthood is the generation that grew up owning Atari 2600's, Colecovision, Nintento, Commodore 64's, and PC's. These were all significant gaming platforms, which all had violent titles available for them. Also consider that these are victimization rates of people above 12 years old -- so we can also include the grand poobah of contraversial titles, Grand Theft Auto. How do you correlate the steep decline in violent crime with the dawn of video gaming? If the anti-gaming studies actually warrant concern, shouldn't we be able to find correlations between violent video games and an increase in violent crime (and not just an increase in news stories about violent crime)?

Before you fly off the handle, RTFA, check out their arguments, see if you can find any validity in their studies, think about the implications.

And then err on the side of safety. In truth, not allowing your children to play some -- or all -- video games is not harmful to them.

I read the article...and their conclusions were largely bullshit, and can be easily picked apart. Tripmaster Monkey has already done a good job of debunking the claims in the article, so I won't re-hash his well-worded argument. I do, however, have a problem with one of your contentions. Backing up a bogus claim with horrendous implications does not make the claim more valid. Think about these two statements (both false): "Chocolate causes acne." "Chocolate causes heart disease, as well as serious developmental disabilities in children". They are both patently false, but one has more serious implications. We know that it won't harm children too not eat chocolate, but does the latter claim make you more likely to prohibit your children from eating chocolate?

Using your logic, by making bogus claims with severe implications and using a so-called expert to back them up, you can be easily coerced into changing your behavior in just about any way. If you disagree, perhaps you should revisit your previous logic.

What people here seem to have an objection to is a sense of misdirected hysterical alarmism. Video games have become a scapegoat, especially since they represent a real disconnect between generations. Referencing recent studies on violent crime (and even property crimes) the "problem" isn't even demonstrable. It would be easier to draw parallels between arguments against video games and arguments against rock 'n roll decaying our nation's moral fiber. In actually...the kids are alright. It appears that the parents the ones who are screwed up here.

Sure, gaming didn't hurt you. But that's a sample size of one.

OK, then let's talk about a larger sample size...let's say: the entire United States of America. Violent crime is at a record low in this country. The most recent generation to reach adulthood is the generation that grew up owning Atari 2600's, Colecovision, Nintento, Commodore 64's, and PC's. These were all significant gaming platforms, which all had violent titles available for them. Also consider that these are victimization rates of people above 12 years old -- so we can also include the grand poobah of contraversial titles, Grand Theft Auto. How do you correlate the steep decline in violent crime with the dawn of video gaming? If the anti-gaming studies actually warrant concern, shouldn't we be able to find correlations between violent video games and an increase in violent crime (and not just an increase in news stories about violent crime)?

Before you fly off the handle, RTFA, check out their arguments, see if you can find any validity in their studies, think about the implications.

And then err on the side of safety. In truth, not allowing your children to play some -- or all -- video games is not harmful to them.

I read the article...and their conclusions were largely bullshit, and can be easily picked apart. Tripmaster Monkey has already done a good job of debunking the claims in the article, so I won't re-hash his well-worded argument. I do, however, have a problem with one of your contentions. Backing up a bogus claim with horrendous implications does not make the claim more valid. Think about these two statements (both false): "Chocolate causes acne." "Chocolate causes heart disease, as well as serious developmental disabilities in children". They are both patently false, but one has more serious implications. We know that it won't harm children too not eat chocolate, but does the latter claim make you more likely to prohibit your children from eating chocolate?

Using your logic, by making bogus claims with severe implications and using a so-called expert to back them up, you can be easily coerced into changing your behavior in just about any way. If you disagree, perhaps you should revisit your previous logic.

What people here seem to have an objection to is a sense of misdirected hysterical alarmism. Video games have become a scapegoat, especially since they represent a real disconnect between generations. Referencing recent studies on violent crime (and even property crimes) the "problem" isn't even demonstrable. It would be easier to draw parallels between arguments against video games and arguments against rock 'n roll decaying our nation's moral fiber. In actually...the kids are alright. It appears that the parents the ones who are screwed up here.

Disturbing stats? The stats themselves are only disturbing if you establish a correlation between cause and effect.

willingness to kill another person is not a natural behavior ....

We've been killing each other since the beginning of time even before video games were ever invented. Whether or not it's natural is debatable and doesn't tell us much anyway

A 1998 study showed that while playing video games children experience a high release of the brain neurotransmitter dopamine, w hich could be called the hype hormone.

High levels of dopamine are common in people with obsessive comulsive disorder so it should be easy to show a correlation between OCD and violence which the author has not done so we might assume there is none.

If there's a correlation between violent crimes and video games then how come while video games are on the increase violent crime is on the decrease?

Facts: there has been no change in the murder rate in the last 5 years - it hasn't gone down.

I suppose that might be a valid argument if violent TV and games appeared suddenly 5 years ago. But they didn't. So let's expand our time base back 10 or 15 years, which better correlates with the increased trend of violence in the media, and we find that the 5 year period that you are selectively choosing to focus on represents a stabilization after a steep decline, and that overall murder rates are holding at the lowest level since the 1960's.

The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, were not included in this table. Why? because it would screw up the stats. Awwwww.

So your argument is what? That the terrorist attacks of September 11 occurred due to Muslim extremists watching too much American TV?

The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and
homicide

The page you show misquotes the source. (Use the source, Luke): What it says is that the RATE OF INCREASE of offenders, not that the rate is lower. The fucktard who wrote the game page can't read, or is lying on purpose

Wrong. Here's the source. As you can see it is not the rate of increase, but the actual rate per 100,000 population. So there may be a "fucktard" who can't read or who is lying on purpose, but it is not my source.

Remember, I'm talking specifically about the incidence of violent crime, not incarceration, which includes a lot of nonviolent offenses and also is sensitive to things like changes in sentencing standards.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Summary findings

The number of adults in the correctional population has been increasing.

Adult correctional populations, 1980-2004
* In 2004, nearly 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2004 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults.

* State and Federal prison authorities had in custody 1,421,911 inmates at yearend 2004: 1,244,311 in State custody and 170,535 in Federal custody.

* Local jails held 713,990 persons awaiting trial or serving a sentence at midyear 2004. An additional 70,548 persons under jail supervision were serving their sentence in the community.

After sharp increases in the 1980s and 1990s, the incarceration rate has recently grown at a slower pace.

Incarceration rate, 1980-2004
* Between 1995 and 2004, the incarcerated population grew an average 3.4% annually. Population growth during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2004 was lower in State prisons (up 1.8%) than in local jails (up 3.3%) and Federal prison (up 5.5%).

Perhaps it is http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm you are looking for.

Overall crime rate is very tenuously linked to the homicide rate of a specific age group. A better metric would be to list, for each age group, the number of homicides offenses per 10,000 people of that same age group. The DOJ gets us part way there, but their stats don't address the shifting age of the population (e.g., are youth being less violent or are there simply less youth per overall population?). You could probably cross-reference it with page 12 of census data and get a good idea.

Problem is, kids AREN'T going around shooting and killing each other, at least not in the US.
The FBI reports that crime overall has gone down steadily since 1994. The most recent stats show that 2004 had the lowest level of violence in over 3 decades.

I wish I could find the specific graphs on this, but here's the raw data for each year... and if you take the time to look at it, it also shows that juvenile crime specifically is at it's lowest level in over a decade.

- GDP is a pointless number to base anything on. It counts all the cash that moves around, regardless of whether that cash is spent doing anything productive. You could dig a $1 million dollar hole, then spend another $1 million filling it, and that would increase your GDP by $2 million. Try using purchase price parity or something less... random. Moreover, GDP has basically no effect on the population whatsoever. Median household income is far more pertinent, and currently median household income in Canada (~$56k CAD/year) is around 9% higher than that of the US (~$44k USD/year, or around ~$51k CAD).

- Average total taxation is out of date. The tax situation has changed pretty substantially both north and south of the border since 1998 (for example, exemptions are now indexed to CPI in Canada, dividend income is nontaxable up to 25k, etc). I would love to see an up-to-date version.

- Unemployment rates are calculated completely differently between the US and Canada. Add the 'discouraged' rates to current US unemployment rates, and take into account the difference in labour force utilization (canada routinely has a couple % higher utilization, mostly due to people magically disappearing from US labour force when they don't fall under the specific categories that allows them to be considered employable). Sadly, neither country tracks underemployed people, but I suppose it's a difficult measure to gauge.

- Violent crime statistics in the US are calculated differently than those in Canada. In the US, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent crime in the US is comprised of "The number of persons arrested for homicide, forcible rape, robbery or aggravated assault as reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI." Notice that there is no mention of basic assaults (ie. bar fights) that ARE included in the canadian statistics you provided, and which account for the vast vast majority of incidents reported. However, an apples-to-apples comparison is here. In summary: Violent crime in canada is substantially less, whereas property crime is essentially parallel.

If comparisons MUST be made, at the very least they should be intellectually honest.

But, but, it's still vital we all give up our essential liberties for a little temporary freedom, right?

Because the world's so dangerous, what with terrorists, rogue states, the completely proportionate concern about avian 'flu, nuclear proliferation and the tidalwave of violent crime that's sweeping the US, UK and entire western world... and not forgetting, of course, all those evil video games turning our kids into gun-toting killers.

Of course it's important - we're in so much danger it's amazing we make it through each day without being shot, stabbed, infected, exploded or bum-raped to death in an alleyway somewhere, and anyone who says differently is a loony liberal, terrorist sympathiser or against our boys in Iraq.

Right?

But, but, it's still vital we all give up our essential liberties for a little temporary freedom, right?

Because the world's so dangerous, what with terrorists, rogue states, the completely proportionate concern about avian 'flu, nuclear proliferation and the tidalwave of violent crime that's sweeping the US, UK and entire western world... and not forgetting, of course, all those evil video games turning our kids into gun-toting killers.

Of course it's important - we're in so much danger it's amazing we make it through each day without being shot, stabbed, infected, exploded or bum-raped to death in an alleyway somewhere, and anyone who says differently is a loony liberal, terrorist sympathiser or against our boys in Iraq.

Right?

But, but, it's still vital we all give up our essential liberties for a little temporary freedom, right?

Because the world's so dangerous, what with terrorists, rogue states, the completely proportionate concern about avian 'flu, nuclear proliferation and the tidalwave of violent crime that's sweeping the US, UK and entire western world... and not forgetting, of course, all those evil video games turning our kids into gun-toting killers.

Of course it's important - we're in so much danger it's amazing we make it through each day without being shot, stabbed, infected, exploded or bum-raped to death in an alleyway somewhere, and anyone who says differently is a loony liberal, terrorist sympathiser or against our boys in Iraq.

Right?

Humm need I point this out? United States v. Microsoft Current Case Just a thought...

it can still be used for unplanned crimes.

Which then leads directly to the other part of your first post, in other words - at what cost? Since you don't see a cost to society in pervasive monitoring (never mind the dollar cost), your answer is easy.

However, as numerous other people have pointed out in this story discussion, there are substantial costs. Since the crime rate has been decreasing in both the UK and the USA for the last 10 years or so, I don't think there is any rational justification for such a system. We are already doing pretty well as it is.

Do you have any numbers to back up that 75% claim in the US? From the reports I've seen, you are way off.

Accidental Police deaths:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1acciden tal.htm

As you can see, the majority were auto related. Also: "In the 10-year period 1995 through 2004, 717 law enforcement officers died from accidents occurring in the line of duty." Further down it says that only "28 of the officers were mistakenly shot".

Compare to the number shot and killed by people meaning them harm:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fidc9397.htm

"A study of data regarding weapons used to kill law enforcement officers showed that over the past decade, 545 officers have been slain with firearms. Of these, 396 were killed with handguns, 114 were killed with rifles, and 35 were killed with shotguns. Also in this same time period, 28 officers died after a vehicle was used as a weapon, 9 officers were killed by bomb blasts, and 7 were killed by assailants using knives or other cutting instruments. Personal weapons, i.e., hands, fists, or feet, were used in 3 of the slayings, and blunt instruments were used in 2 of the murders. (See Table 28.)" This data doesn't include the Sept 11th attacks, as explained on the front page of the report. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/openpage.htm)

So put up some real facts, or stop spreading bullshit.

"3, Insightful"? How 'bout "0, Uninformed"? The crimes laid out in Thomas Penfield Jackson, U.S. District Judge's COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT are criminal under any reasonable legal system, including those of a 'truly free society'. There is an old saying: "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" that is applicable. 5-year perspective on the case is interesting. Microsoft regularly flexes their patent muscle by refusing to grant use of patents it owns to competitors. E.g. Bill Gates himself has turned down patent licensing requests for use of Microsoft patents proposed as IETF standards. (google Microsoft IETF patent or read this) Their anti-competitive practices most certainly do involve patents. Patent abuse is even an incriminating component of the above FINDINGS OF FACT. And Microsoft's abuses go far beyond those discussed in the FINDINGS OF FACT; see http://kmfms.com/whatsbad.html.

How about people contact their respective attorney's general (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/index.html) about removing Sony's (and other Corps) incentive to violate computer protection and privacy laws (that RIAA among other trade groups lobbied to pass) and file charges to the fullest extent, if you're going to support a law it has to be both ways right?

But 1 person in 30 in the USA are in jail are because of drug crimes

According to the DOJ, 1 in 31 people in the US are on probation, parole, or in jail or prison. That would certainly contradict your statistic. Although, if you meant 1 in 30 people in the prison population is in on drug crimes, that would be much too low. From stopthedrugwar.org:

"the Justice Department number-crunchers found that people sentenced for drug crimes accounted for 21% of state prisoners and 55% of all federal prisoners."

"an earlier BJS report put the percentage of jail inmates doing time for drug crime at 24.7% in 2002"

"the total number of people doing time for drugs in the United States last year exceeded 530,000."

Well, you all know how Sony treats its (ex-)customers, and calling them will get you nowhere. So instead of calling or emailing Sony, contact the US Department of Justice , and demand an action against Sony. They have never charged a big corporation with a computer crime, but I believe that Sony should be the first one, and let it set an example.

The lot of us who don't have a problem with driving 85mph on the freeway aren't forming groups to lobby congress to raise the speed limits and passing them dirty money.

Probably because most of these people actually have lives and don't have spare cash to throw around.

Please, go take a look at the picture of the guy who is promoting this. He's a chump. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html I mean, look at the website. It looks like it was designed by Judge Judy. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a gameshow?

Maybe the MPAA and RIAA should appear on Judge Judy. At least they'd be providing entertainment in the process :)

The lot of us who don't have a problem with driving 85mph on the freeway aren't forming groups to lobby congress to raise the speed limits and passing them dirty money.

The entertainment industry does.

$$$MONEY$$$

Please, go take a look at the picture of the guy who is promoting this. He's a chump. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html

I mean, look at the website. It looks like it was designed by Judge Judy. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a gameshow?

"they will start using undercover agents to befriend and betray their way into darknets"

What do you mean, "start"?

That's exactly what they did in Operation: Decrypt, Operation: SiteDown, and Operation: Buccaneer.

They rely on the "idiot element".

It's the people that allow these idiots to infiltrate the group that get busted. It's the groups that can smell the rat that still are out there.

"they will start using undercover agents to befriend and betray their way into darknets"

What do you mean, "start"?

That's exactly what they did in Operation: Decrypt, Operation: SiteDown, and Operation: Buccaneer.

They rely on the "idiot element".

It's the people that allow these idiots to infiltrate the group that get busted. It's the groups that can smell the rat that still are out there.

"they will start using undercover agents to befriend and betray their way into darknets"

What do you mean, "start"?

That's exactly what they did in Operation: Decrypt, Operation: SiteDown, and Operation: Buccaneer.

They rely on the "idiot element".

It's the people that allow these idiots to infiltrate the group that get busted. It's the groups that can smell the rat that still are out there.

This news shouldn't surprise anyone I suppose, but...

Back in March of this year Gonzales "renewed his commitment" to the Justice Departament's Intellectual Property Task Force by appointing his then Deputy Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as the new chairman. Official announcement.

Well, Sampson isn't new to the game of IP, politics, and the law. He was the one advising Senator Orrin "I Will Destroy Your Computer" Hatch from 1999-2001 on tech issues. Full bio

Kind of creepy...

Unauthorized use of a computer is a criminal offense, I believe. See here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new. html

Sentences ranging from fines up to 20 years imprisonment.

Is the http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# v>US Govermnent good enough for you, because that action was the basis of the principle finding of the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial?

Maybe you should read up on the history of MS a bit, as well as the Findings of Fact from their anti-trust trial. I personally don't hate MS and as an IT professional I use their products when the situation merits it, but not blindly. It's worth understanding the source of the antipathy toward MS b/c it's not without reason or justification.

Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists:

Or you could pay attention to SCOTUS decisions.
Review of said decisions here.
Said latest decision (using google's pdf to html) here.

The OP was exactly correct, the police have NO duty to protect any specific individual, absent a "special relationship" - which a restraining order is explicitly held not to do.

Here are some links to some studies, though if you missed the GONZALES case, decided a whole 4 months and 2 days ago (it even made the news AND /., IIRC), I doubt you are really all that interested. Which probably explains why you "still haven't seen anyone citing actual studies":

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/florccw.html
etc, etc, etc.

I don't think I said anywhere that reduced crime was entirely due to increased prison population. I merely said, and I'll re-state it in more simple terms, when you put criminals in jail they are no longer able to commit new crimes. This reduces the total number of crimes. Now let us examine the formula for crime rate:

CrimeRate = #Crimes / Unit-of-Time

If we make the numerator smaller, then the function CrimeRate returns a smaller value. Apparently this is a concept that is too advanced for many to grasp.

And I completely believe your claim that a reduction in teen and unmarried young mothers correlates with a reduced crime rate. As it happens both my assertion and yours fit neatly in the "common sense" category which is so often overlooked, ignored and/or /criticized as too simplistic.

Let me offer the following statistics as further proof that locking up criminals reduces the crime rate. I refer you to:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

And in case you are pressed for time, here are a few excerpts:

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.

BTW, that's 18 arrests per inmate - very productive these criminals!

Interesting claim. First off, I take it you're against incarcerating white collar criminals, then-- after all, we could just take their money and blacklist them from all financial institutions. No safety risk to us, no need to stick our Enron execs behind bars.

Secondly, if you look at both federal and state prison stats http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm only about 21% of the prison population are drug offenders. Overall, over half of the entire prison population are violent, with the remainder falling into property/public order offenses. Thirdly, if you talk with the correctional officers out here in California, the drug offenders tend to be safer and more cooperative, thus reducing the necessary officer-to-prisoner ratio. A higher concentration of violent offenders will only up the necessary ratio, so I have no idea from where you derive your figures.

The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves.

I realize you'll get plenty of rah rah here since you're pushing a popular Slashdot political viewpoint, but if you're talking drugs, I don't see how 21% is "largely." A better argument would be that the US incarcerates people largely to deter behavior of which the elected government does not approve. Perhaps you feel that some government decisions do not help society; I certainly agree that there is plenty the government can always do better, but you don't address any the major process equity tradeoffs necessary in shaping this policy. The only sad thing in your comment is that you've bought into some broad political groupthink without critically considering the facts or policy implications.

Commercial versions of Linux were available before that case was filed, just like they are now for Apple Macs. So, just because the U.S.D.O.J. says Microsoft is a monopoly, that doesn't mean that they actually are, at least according to the definition found in any respected dictionary. Of course, Microsoft wouldn't be the first victim of special interests using the D.O.J. as an attack dog.

Ah yes, because the government is soooo good at defending against counterfeiters and unauthorized money.

Enjoy your freedom (when the U.S. Army starts quoting Trotsky, be afraid. Very afraid.)

"There exist outrageous levels of crime that create a powder keg every time the police isn't controlling the streets."

This is not correct. The crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1993:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

And the reporting of violent crimes in New Orleans is mostly devoid of facts (i.e. sensationalism):

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl e_id=4797
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2002520986_katmyth26.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 05-09-29-after-further-review_x.htm

"Did you know a typical Chinese peasant now lives longer than a US citizen? (Bet they don't mention facts like that on Fox)"

That's an interesting theory, but not proven by sources. A typical Chinese citizen lives just under 71 years, but a typical US citizen lives just under 78 years.

http://www.china-club.de/english/chinaguide/ueberb lick.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500824_4/U nited_States_(People).html#p73

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/200 4/206631.htm

Four Infineon executives were sent to prison (albeit briefly) as part of their plea bargain, also in SF Superior Court.

Source that violent crimes for majors and minors have been going down since (about) the time video games became really popular.

The penalties available for criminal infringement are codified at 18 U.S.C. 2319. For the misdemeanor violations, a defendant may be sentenced to up to one-year imprisonment and fined up to $100,000. See 18 U.S.C. 2319(b)(3), 3571(b)(5). For a felony violation, where the infringement consists of the reproduction or distribution during a 180-day period of no fewer than ten copies or phonorecords which have a total retail value of more than $2,500, the maximum penalty can be three or five years imprisonment, depending on what purpose can be proven. If the government proves that the defendant acted for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, and obtains a conviction under 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1), the maximum sentence for a first time offender is imprisonment for up to 5 years and a fine of up to $250,000. See 18 U.S.C. 2319(b)(1), 3571(b)(3). Those with a prior copyright infringement conviction are subject to up to 10-years' imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. 2319(b)(2). If a financial motivation is not proven in a felony case, and the conviction is obtained under 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2), the defendant can be imprisoned for up to 3 years -- six years for the repeat offender -- and fined up to $250,000. See 18 U.S.C. 2319(c), 3571(b)(3). http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/ 03ipma.htm#III.D.

Those rights are more different than alike, and for this reason, many critics discourage use of the umbrella term "intellectual property" to conflate them.

Your one expert is Stallman, a man who is a founder of FSF. Not exactly an unbiased person to be using, and the only person he quotes in a Stanford Law Professor. You know the says, "Those who cannot do, teach." From my discussions with law professors and attorneys there does seem to be a divide between the professors and the actual practicing lawyers as to who really knows. I think this is why some law schools try to get practicing lawyers with time to spare to teach course matter whenever possible. I also think it is why more law students are encouraged to spend time working for firms and doing practical work experience outside of school.

The term "intellectual property" is not used in the United States Code, and for a good reason: the different exclusive rights that make it up have different purposes and raise entirely different sets of public policy issues. So maybe it isn't in the USC, but don't act like no one uses it. The DOJ is using the term. The head of the USPTO is the Undersecretary for Intellectual Propert and Director of the USPTO. One of the longest government titles I would imagine. You forgot live shows. Do you claim that live shows should be just as unlawful as element 4 because like element 4, they don't result in a lot of revenue going back to the label?

So I forgot one thing. But do a bit of checking and you will learn that artists make the majority of their money off of live shows. Typically live shows are contracted and handled by artists and their agents, not by the record labels.

No, they are hurting the ratings for Music_Radio_And_Music_TV_In_General. Those services that are full of illicit file-sharing have their own ratings

Explain to me how what you are saying is different then what I am saying that radio stations and tv stations involved in music suffer by piracy of music. Same can be said for other television stations with the proliferation of movie and tv piracy.

s it still prohibited even if such noncommercial sharing has been authorized by the author using a license such as CC by-nd-nc? Or do you claim that independent authors of musical works do not have the authority to grant such a license because they can't prove that their work is original?

I am not trying to say that they cannot do this. I would ever encourage in it many situations. It is matters like this that show us the legitimate uses for BitTorrent. My problem isn't so much with sharing files, it is this attitude that people seem to have taken where they believe what they are doing is not illegal for once reason or another. I do condemn the RIAA for actions like this, but you have to understand where they are coming from. They have several problems that are costing them money, but the thing is only a few of them are actually quantifiable, and tracking downloads of the new hit song is one of those few trackable methods. It is quite possibly true that the music is just getting shittier, but it is sort of hard to quanitify that without record sales, and they cannot seem to accurately quantify record sales anymore (in their opinion) because of P2P sharing of music. If that truly is the case they have a Catch-22 and really cannot do much about it. We will see if things change with time, but I really think the RIAA will just continue to screw up until one of the Big 4 (or several of the smaller groups) decide to actually take a chance and show the others it is time for a change.

The first criminal provision in our copyright laws was a misdemeanor penalty added in 1897 for unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions. ... In order to constitute a criminal violation, the defendant's conduct was required to have been "willful and for profit." Section 104 of the general copyright revision of 1909 extended this penalty to all types of copyrighted works. Legislative History - Copyright Felony Act (1992), 18 U.S.C. 2319 Criminal Infringement of a Copyright

Here are some press releases from the DOJ on some cases
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=169 520&rl=1

I agree with your second point, but common usage says otherwise. The term copyright theft has a public usage and definition which is different from the legal terms used. You can see examples of it usage in everything from media to the organization fighting for thier IP rights even to the organization fighting the previous groups.

Here are some press releases from the DOJ on some cases
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/thornton. htm

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=169 520&rl=1

I agree with your second point, but common usage says otherwise. The term copyright theft has a public usage and definition which is different from the legal terms used. You can see examples of it usage in everything from media to the organization fighting for thier IP rights even to the organization fighting the previous groups.

The law doesn't say anything about copyright holders being able to circumvent DRM in order to access to grant access to works for others.

Then what is your interpretation of the phrase "authority of the copyright owner" in 17 USC 1201?