if you go into a store and steal a CD, that's the equivalent of downloading an album of mp3's from the internet and not paying for it. No, it's not. That CD cost the store $3 to $7, and now that you've stolen it, they can't recoup their cost for it AND they'll need to replace it with another copy in order to satisfy the demand for that item. You've taken money from them.
Downloading music doesn't deprive anyone of anything, unless you would have purchased the music had downloading not been possible (which may or may not be true).
There's a reason that the charge for this isn't theft -- because legally it's not; it's infringement.
We either need to either require seatbelts or make emergency services check... I take it this is also a call to make motorcycles illegal, then? Or do I just not deserve emergency medical attention because some asshat runs a stop sign in front of me, and I end up hitting him?
Oh, never mind... you're one of those "pussies who blindly does what you're told and everyone who behaves differently deserves nothing."
Let me guess, you also think McDonald's should be illegal because they make people fat, thereby raising your insurance rates?
There is no balance in safety legislation; the government simply legislates -- on a whim -- how we must behave for our own good. Think about it logically: Should you be FORCED to wear a seatbelt when driving a car, when I'm perfectly free to drive a motorcycle? It doesn't make sense. The government has arbitrarily mandated the personal safety of a behavior that is already safe compared to some other legal alternatives.
It's like mandating that no bathtub can be more than 2 inches deep (to keep you from drowning, don't you know) but keeping showers legal, despite the far greater likelihood of fatal shower slip-&-fall injuries.
As long as there are people like you who think giving up rights is okay as long as we don't give up too many (as in your ridiculous PATRIOT ACT example), freedom cannot exist.
And this doesn't even touch on the free market arguement: the ridiculousness of Honda being allowed to sell motorcycles (the most dangerous vehicles on the road), while not being allowed to sell cars without a shoulder belt.
The greens are censoring anti-green content. Citation for this, please?
You seem to view this as something that is wrong. I don't. You've described niche markets, equated them (ridiculously) with censorship, then suggested that you're a hero for thinking free markets are good. Here's an expansion of your post, using food instead of books: "McDonald's doesn't sell Whoppers, and even though you may think that's wrong. I don't."
In fact, nothing in your post is censorship. WalMart doesn't censor anything except maybe it's employees -- it doesn't have the power. Christian bookstores also don't censor anything. REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN ITEMS IS NOT CENSORSHIP; IT'S FREEDOM.
You've also said that the government rarely censors anything, yet you give no support for this despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (google government and censorship).
We've had hyperlinks for a long time now, yet when how often do you see them used in news stories and other common online writings? How many articles have you read and wondered, "WTF is this article ABOUT?"
The internet allows articles to supplement themselves with reams of additional information, but no one makes use of it, mainly because Big Media seems the online environment itself as just a supplement to print.
The problem isn't the public's attention span; it's the failure of vision in online publishing. When writers choose (and are allowed to choose) to make use of the strengths of hypertext, their writing will have more value in demand will grow.
Slashdot Mirror
Downloading music doesn't deprive anyone of anything, unless you would have purchased the music had downloading not been possible (which may or may not be true).
There's a reason that the charge for this isn't theft -- because legally it's not; it's infringement.
Oh, never mind... you're one of those "pussies who blindly does what you're told and everyone who behaves differently deserves nothing."
Let me guess, you also think McDonald's should be illegal because they make people fat, thereby raising your insurance rates?
There is no balance in safety legislation; the government simply legislates -- on a whim -- how we must behave for our own good. Think about it logically: Should you be FORCED to wear a seatbelt when driving a car, when I'm perfectly free to drive a motorcycle? It doesn't make sense. The government has arbitrarily mandated the personal safety of a behavior that is already safe compared to some other legal alternatives.
It's like mandating that no bathtub can be more than 2 inches deep (to keep you from drowning, don't you know) but keeping showers legal, despite the far greater likelihood of fatal shower slip-&-fall injuries.
As long as there are people like you who think giving up rights is okay as long as we don't give up too many (as in your ridiculous PATRIOT ACT example), freedom cannot exist.
And this doesn't even touch on the free market arguement: the ridiculousness of Honda being allowed to sell motorcycles (the most dangerous vehicles on the road), while not being allowed to sell cars without a shoulder belt.
Steam.
So if they had sinned again, he would have stoned them?
If not, then it's a message of tolerance.
We've had hyperlinks for a long time now, yet when how often do you see them used in news stories and other common online writings? How many articles have you read and wondered, "WTF is this article ABOUT?"
The internet allows articles to supplement themselves with reams of additional information, but no one makes use of it, mainly because Big Media seems the online environment itself as just a supplement to print.
The problem isn't the public's attention span; it's the failure of vision in online publishing. When writers choose (and are allowed to choose) to make use of the strengths of hypertext, their writing will have more value in demand will grow.