. The alternative strategy you propose, i.e., pretend that they're not already regulated, or that you can turn the situation around without addressing the regulatory problem--- that strategy is guaranteed to fail.
I proposed no such thing, that you would twist my words like this speaks volumes about you.
Now, I didn't say they weren't regulated, nor did I pretend they weren't. nor did I advise any such thing. Care to demonstrate where I did?
The strategy I would advise does work, has worked before, can and will work again... ditch them and go to their competitors. If you do business with someone and they cause a problem for you, try to solve it yourself for christ's sake. Quit being a typical lazy ass american who thinks the government is some kind of magic geenie to be looked to every time a problem pops up. Asking the politicians who are owned by the very business you have a problem with to solve the problem before you even try yourself, is beyond naive, it's stupid and lazy.
You want to make an argument for cleaning up the political process so this isn't the case anymore, I'm all ears. Until you address the rampant problem of corporate ownership of our politicians, you're living in a dream world advocating this course of action.
Tell you what, why don't you go look at any given regulation passed in the last 20 years at the federal level for industries whose offerings didn't impact public health and safety and who have substantial lobbies in washington, then see if the goals of the public calling for the regulations were achieved by them.
It's very easy for idealists to phrase arguments in ways that sound reasonable, but reality speaks for itself. You want to believe that regulation would ONLY entail penalizing a certain business behavior then you go on living in your own little world. Here in the real world, regulations like that almost always carry sweet provisions that favor the established powers in said industry, severely limiting future competition in that industry.
Yep. I don't remember the last time Yahoo had any type of edge. I'll admit I don't know all their offerings, but the ones I do know, business email and their ecommerce plans, are archaic at best. The last time they updated their yahoo store ecommerce system, it brought it up to state-of-the-5-years-ago-art. Compare their offerings(taking note of their pricing structure) to offerings from smaller competitors, they simply aren't a good deal when you do the math and don't even deliver all the same features.
Microsoft hasn't had a youthful technical edge in a long time. The shipping version of Vista(versus what they said they were going to do) shows all the signs of a stagnating tech behemoth that is more driven by share price concerns than delivering innovative products.
This can be translated as "Can't somebody else do it?"
Giving a government run by politicians who are in the back pockets of these same corporations the power to regulate is not going to achieve what those who want regulation want to achieve.
What era, so far, has the longest life spans and the most people alive at one time living in relative peace?
Everyone gets so focused sometimes on what's wrong in this day and age that they forget to take a look at what's right. People also have a tendency to judge the world by their own ideals, never mind how unrealistic their ideals are. There has never been an age in known history where war and conflicts for control over resources was not part of the human condition. The free market may not be the most equitable system, but it sure beats an arrow in the side, or having your still beating heart ripped out of your rib cage to satisfy a sun god.
If they'll come down on churches for doing this, they'll come down on community centers or anyone else. Don't you think this is an asinine application of law?
I'm so used to everyone being at each others throats over religion and politics, that I'm not even sure why I bother pointing this out. They're slowing down the advancement of OUR society through the perversion of copyright law and the expansion of power for the rich, while everyone fights it out with every other idealist who opposes their ideals. We all remain good little consumers who know our place cuz at least we're not taking crap from the christians/atheists/muslims/gays/blacks/whites/jews/hindus/asians/democrats/republicans/etc... One day, they'll all see that we were right and they were wrong, provided they have enough money to pay for learning about history, as some rich corporation will own the copyright to it.
It may sound hackneyed to say this, but I actually did feel stirrings of patriotic (in the sense of commitment to a community
If you weren't religious before, congratulations, now you have a good idea of how religions rally their congregations.
Good feelings do not make a good president. There has to be more than that.
If there is anything Obama connotes to me, above and beyond his policy positions (which I am generally OK with - though I'm also OK with a lot of HRC's positions, but can't stand her) its the return of a culture of listening, of not seeing conservatives or liberals as "the enemy", but as fellow citizens. It's an idealistic position, but maybe I'm a little tired of cynicism.
With all due respect, idealists have a tendancy to call all realistic viewpoints "cynical", when those viewpoints don't support their idealist goals. We don't need more idealism now. We need more realism. The sooner you people who keep clinging to idealistic views and daydreams understand that the divisions in this country are idealistic in nature, the sooner we can actually get everyone back down to reality, discussing things that could actually change things for the better. Realistically speaking, exactly how do you see obama being able to stop the rank and file republicans from continuing division? Has he done anything to demonstrate that he realistically has an ability to do that?
Obama has a good marketing campaign, I certainly don't feel any illwill towards him, but he also doesn't have a track record that clearly says he'll change anything. If he wins, I will respect him as my president and he will have my full support until if/when he demonstrates he is just another politician, but I won't be voting for him personally. I'm voting for the only one candidate I know of who has a track record that gives a logical reason to believe in their stated platform. Good feelings and idealistic daydreams don't cut it anymore. Our civil liberties are being eroded and now is not the time to let good feelings get in the way of logic and reason.
Or if you're enamored with the mainstream view points as held by those who watch 4.5 hours of tele a day and engage in other incredibly mind numbing behaviors that define "normal" and "mainstream" in this country, I suppose it's always the time to go for the good feelings.
And here's something to nibble on: anyone who supports Ron Paul supports letting this merger happen, consequences be damned. Because, y'know, the free market will fix the problem... a competitor will rise like Phoenix from the ashes of Yahoo. Not to get off too far on a tangent, but now it appears we're down to two main competitors in the IT world... how long will it be before we are always forced with choosing the lesser of two evils? Is this really the optimal situation? We have it in politics, we're getting it in major IT players.
I honestly don't get why anyone is bothered by this? Was Yahoo a public service? It was always a company, born in the free market. And the free market has been fixing the problem that is microsoft, in case you haven't been paying attention. We're *up to two main competitors*, up from one before Google's ascendancy. Google, a company born in the free market, has done more to impede the microsoft tech juggernaut than all the actions of all the governments taken against it so far. Not just google, to a lesser degree open source(whose rise has also been driven by the free market).
Do you know why Ron Paul and those of us who happen to agree with the stance of letting the free market solve it believe that way? Because those who rail and whine against it have no viable alternative. Granting the government more power over the markets, when it has consistently abused it's power and been owned by corporate interest is going to achieve what exactly?
They'll read the comments, take a few minor suggestions that are about as a substantive of a reform as a changing the paint on the wall from beige to white, and call it even. Then everyone in power will trumpet how the system works, the people were heard, and how America is still the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
You forgot about updating all the complainers files, because terrorists complain about governments so people who complain about governments are potential terrorists. Patriots love being intrusively searched at the airport. They just don't like paying taxes.:P
That could be, I wouldn't rule that viewpoint out at all. BUT, I also don't rule out a militant group/foreign government who wants to make a point or see things started.
We go into Iran right now, that's going to weaken us as a nation(speaking US centric), I don't give a damn what the fiscally ignorant supporters of such action say to the contrary. Unless we were blessed with a magical quick decisive victory that the supporters of the Iraq Invasion were claiming we'd have 5 years ago, we would lose more than we would ever gain out of such an attack. A lot of people in power in other places know this and would love to see us fall on our faces.
Then again, why try to trip the fool who does such a fine job of tripping their self? Hard to read it honestly, bastards and liars on all sides. Trusting any of them is done at your own risk of being led down the merry path.
If this is the work of our spies, they aren't earning their salary. They're incompetent bastards who should be fired for lacking any type of stealth or subtlety.
How much tech do you really need to cut a cable? It doesn't seem like it would require much in the way of high tech capability. Given that these cables are communication lines carrying western influences into muslim countries, I would say that at this point, we should not rule out militant acts to make a statement about wanting a reduction of western influence.
If this is our spies, this would seem to be a pretty boneheaded execution of tapping lines. But, since they work for the government, we can't rule out boneheadedness. Or just really bizzarre random chance, though that's kind of hard for me personally to swallow at this point.
Do people not have the common sense to know that actions can follow you over time?
There's two cases where people just don't care. One is more common among the high school - college age and that's when you're living for the moment. It's one of the more common follies of youth, though it's not uncommon to see it among those experiencing a midlife crisis.
The other case is more common by older types and is an attitude that arises out of unchecked ambition, where the goals are perceived by the individual to be more urgent and more important than thinking about the consequences. The best known example of this thinking is President Bush's answer to Bob Woodward when asked "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" and he answered "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." This is the folly of unchecked(by reality) ambition.
What sucks in my opinion is, society has become so brutal and unforgiving for young people and this thing where the follies of your youth potentially captured by some asshat with a camera phone can now follow you for life is just one more example. My grandfather(RIP) shared with me some of the things he did back in the depression era, and had there be an internet and digital photography, maybe he would have been plagued by those things professionally?
I'd hate to be college aged during this current era with cameras everywhere. I did some things that, while not overtly evil, would definetly cause more conservative interviewers grave reservations about me. OTOH, I don't have a single friend who can't say the same thing. So maybe the answer is society needs to lighten the fuck up and let the old fronts and phoney public images of the past die. Generations before us worked hard to keep up phoney public appearances of a normality that never was "normal" or even realistic.
I got the WAN part, but for some reason, when I read it the first time I got wireless in my head. Weird. My argument still stands for the same reasons. That would be crazy to put your most sensitive data on a server directly connected to one big WAN shared by everyone.
It's one thing to have WLAN access to an intranet, it's another thing to ditch your LAN altogether and make every machine wireless. A WLAN access point to the intranet can be tightly controlled and monitored. You can, for example, make sure that extremely sensitive information can not be accessed through the WLAN. It's one thing to give everyone acces to their email and the ability to print from wireless devices(though even email could be at risk), it's another thing to let people access the crown jewels of the companies most sensitive data via wireless. I would be very surprised if that was the case at IBM.
I was assuming that in my response. I don't see the LAN disappearing in the next 10 years for the simple fact that a WLAN is less secure by its very nature than a LAN. Any corporation or entity with information worth stealing, isn't going to be getting rid of their LANs anytime soon. That would be insane. A LAN can have its access points physically secured and tightly controlled and monitored. You go wireless, and you've created a range where people can not only create their own potential access points, but snoop data broadcast over it. Even if it's encrypted, it can be recorded to be worked on cracking later.
Maybe there's some seriously groundbreaking wireless technology I'm not aware of about to take the IT world by storm, but barring that, I'll put money on the LAN having a long life to come. Certainly at least another 10 years, if not much more.
As a fellow ex-Christian, I didn't say you didn't. I was merely pointing out that bashing Christianity in general on a thread regarding the pope is just about as offtopic as bashing Islam on a thread regarding the Pope. The Pope may be a Christian, but you'll find about about a billion Christians on the planet that will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Pope does not speak for them.
... the lan isn't going to disappear, at least not in 10 years. Can you imagine IBM, a defense corp, a huge pharma, etc... ditching their lans for wireless? yeah right, not any time soon.
Nice rationalization, so if a thief can't afford a CD it would be fine to steal the CD?
Nice comparison. If you steal a CD, you are depriving someone of property and you are indeed depriving them of the right to profit from that property. When you copy software, that does not happen. No one is deprived of anything, unless you were in a position to purchase the software in the first place and you decided you'd rather not pay just cuz you're a cheap bastard.
I realize the Hardware companies have profitted immensely from piracy
lmao. There's a switch. Paint the company that creates the market for the software to even be created to be profited from in the first place with dark shades because they profited form piracy. That's rich. I'm going to be laughing for hours at that spin.
but the copyright holder lost out on their right to profit from the distribution of the software
How? How does a copyright holder lose their right to profit if a copy goes to someone who couldn't buy it in the first place? There is no loss there. That's absurd. Where's the loss?
I hear all that. I "pirated" almost everything back then too. I was a poor kid and I had no money after saving up for half the cost of the computer(which my mom and grandparents matched for the other half). Those game companies didn't lose any sales to me, you can't get blood from a turnip afterall. In fact, Origin in particular would go on to benefit long term, as I played ULtima I, II, and III for free, and when IV came out, I had a job and bought a copy of that and V-VI later(and I would in turn influence my friends to buy copies as we all raced to win it first). I would never have bought those games later had I not played the first three installments, and there was no way I could have played them had I not been able to get free copies. In fact, getting hooked on games by being able to play them for free as a kid, directly led to all the money I've spent on games over the years since entering the work force.
That's one reason I'm convinced the "R" in "RIAA" stands for Retarded when they sue young people of poor or working class parents. Those are their future customers and that's a very shoddy way to prime them for sales when they finally come into their own money. Had Origin or an industry body backed by them pulled the same stunt on me, I'd have grown up hating them, and would have made it a point not to never give them a dime of my money.
They will doubtless be discussed many, MANY times more.
I'll admit I'm ignorant of how it works in Australia, but here rights encroachment generally happens in one of two ways:
The politicians keep discussing it over the years and eventually it push it through, usually on the back of some shocking-to-the-public-conscience event. Like weapons regulations get tightened every time some little girl dies at the hands of some asshole who used a gun. See we can't hang him because we have to respect his civil rights so instead we limit the civil right to bear arms for everyone else while our system goes out of its way to put on a show of respecting the civil rights of the animal actually guilty of the crime.
The other way is that a politician or civil leader(often law enforcement officers) will make an outrageous demand, moving the bar of outrage causing comments substantially, then the actual steps taken, though they were unthinkable just a few years before, don't seem so bad.
Anyway, I hope that's not how your system works down there.
Slashdot Mirror
. The alternative strategy you propose, i.e., pretend that they're not already regulated, or that you can turn the situation around without addressing the regulatory problem--- that strategy is guaranteed to fail.
I proposed no such thing, that you would twist my words like this speaks volumes about you.
Now, I didn't say they weren't regulated, nor did I pretend they weren't. nor did I advise any such thing. Care to demonstrate where I did?
The strategy I would advise does work, has worked before, can and will work again... ditch them and go to their competitors. If you do business with someone and they cause a problem for you, try to solve it yourself for christ's sake. Quit being a typical lazy ass american who thinks the government is some kind of magic geenie to be looked to every time a problem pops up. Asking the politicians who are owned by the very business you have a problem with to solve the problem before you even try yourself, is beyond naive, it's stupid and lazy.
You want to make an argument for cleaning up the political process so this isn't the case anymore, I'm all ears. Until you address the rampant problem of corporate ownership of our politicians, you're living in a dream world advocating this course of action.
Tell you what, why don't you go look at any given regulation passed in the last 20 years at the federal level for industries whose offerings didn't impact public health and safety and who have substantial lobbies in washington, then see if the goals of the public calling for the regulations were achieved by them.
It's very easy for idealists to phrase arguments in ways that sound reasonable, but reality speaks for itself. You want to believe that regulation would ONLY entail penalizing a certain business behavior then you go on living in your own little world. Here in the real world, regulations like that almost always carry sweet provisions that favor the established powers in said industry, severely limiting future competition in that industry.
Yep. I don't remember the last time Yahoo had any type of edge. I'll admit I don't know all their offerings, but the ones I do know, business email and their ecommerce plans, are archaic at best. The last time they updated their yahoo store ecommerce system, it brought it up to state-of-the-5-years-ago-art. Compare their offerings(taking note of their pricing structure) to offerings from smaller competitors, they simply aren't a good deal when you do the math and don't even deliver all the same features.
Microsoft hasn't had a youthful technical edge in a long time. The shipping version of Vista(versus what they said they were going to do) shows all the signs of a stagnating tech behemoth that is more driven by share price concerns than delivering innovative products.
they still have that "edge" that seem lacking in larger companies.
Like Yahoo and Microsoft for example.
How about some gosh darn regulation already!
This can be translated as "Can't somebody else do it?"
Giving a government run by politicians who are in the back pockets of these same corporations the power to regulate is not going to achieve what those who want regulation want to achieve.
What era, so far, has the longest life spans and the most people alive at one time living in relative peace?
Everyone gets so focused sometimes on what's wrong in this day and age that they forget to take a look at what's right. People also have a tendency to judge the world by their own ideals, never mind how unrealistic their ideals are. There has never been an age in known history where war and conflicts for control over resources was not part of the human condition. The free market may not be the most equitable system, but it sure beats an arrow in the side, or having your still beating heart ripped out of your rib cage to satisfy a sun god.
If they'll come down on churches for doing this, they'll come down on community centers or anyone else. Don't you think this is an asinine application of law?
I'm so used to everyone being at each others throats over religion and politics, that I'm not even sure why I bother pointing this out. They're slowing down the advancement of OUR society through the perversion of copyright law and the expansion of power for the rich, while everyone fights it out with every other idealist who opposes their ideals. We all remain good little consumers who know our place cuz at least we're not taking crap from the christians/atheists/muslims/gays/blacks/whites/jews/hindus/asians/democrats/republicans/etc... One day, they'll all see that we were right and they were wrong, provided they have enough money to pay for learning about history, as some rich corporation will own the copyright to it.
It may sound hackneyed to say this, but I actually did feel stirrings of patriotic (in the sense of commitment to a community
If you weren't religious before, congratulations, now you have a good idea of how religions rally their congregations.
Good feelings do not make a good president. There has to be more than that.
If there is anything Obama connotes to me, above and beyond his policy positions (which I am generally OK with - though I'm also OK with a lot of HRC's positions, but can't stand her) its the return of a culture of listening, of not seeing conservatives or liberals as "the enemy", but as fellow citizens. It's an idealistic position, but maybe I'm a little tired of cynicism.
With all due respect, idealists have a tendancy to call all realistic viewpoints "cynical", when those viewpoints don't support their idealist goals. We don't need more idealism now. We need more realism. The sooner you people who keep clinging to idealistic views and daydreams understand that the divisions in this country are idealistic in nature, the sooner we can actually get everyone back down to reality, discussing things that could actually change things for the better. Realistically speaking, exactly how do you see obama being able to stop the rank and file republicans from continuing division? Has he done anything to demonstrate that he realistically has an ability to do that?
Obama has a good marketing campaign, I certainly don't feel any illwill towards him, but he also doesn't have a track record that clearly says he'll change anything. If he wins, I will respect him as my president and he will have my full support until if/when he demonstrates he is just another politician, but I won't be voting for him personally. I'm voting for the only one candidate I know of who has a track record that gives a logical reason to believe in their stated platform. Good feelings and idealistic daydreams don't cut it anymore. Our civil liberties are being eroded and now is not the time to let good feelings get in the way of logic and reason.
Or if you're enamored with the mainstream view points as held by those who watch 4.5 hours of tele a day and engage in other incredibly mind numbing behaviors that define "normal" and "mainstream" in this country, I suppose it's always the time to go for the good feelings.
And here's something to nibble on: anyone who supports Ron Paul supports letting this merger happen, consequences be damned. Because, y'know, the free market will fix the problem... a competitor will rise like Phoenix from the ashes of Yahoo. Not to get off too far on a tangent, but now it appears we're down to two main competitors in the IT world... how long will it be before we are always forced with choosing the lesser of two evils? Is this really the optimal situation? We have it in politics, we're getting it in major IT players.
I honestly don't get why anyone is bothered by this? Was Yahoo a public service? It was always a company, born in the free market. And the free market has been fixing the problem that is microsoft, in case you haven't been paying attention. We're *up to two main competitors*, up from one before Google's ascendancy. Google, a company born in the free market, has done more to impede the microsoft tech juggernaut than all the actions of all the governments taken against it so far. Not just google, to a lesser degree open source(whose rise has also been driven by the free market).
Do you know why Ron Paul and those of us who happen to agree with the stance of letting the free market solve it believe that way? Because those who rail and whine against it have no viable alternative. Granting the government more power over the markets, when it has consistently abused it's power and been owned by corporate interest is going to achieve what exactly?
They'll read the comments, take a few minor suggestions that are about as a substantive of a reform as a changing the paint on the wall from beige to white, and call it even. Then everyone in power will trumpet how the system works, the people were heard, and how America is still the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
:P
You forgot about updating all the complainers files, because terrorists complain about governments so people who complain about governments are potential terrorists. Patriots love being intrusively searched at the airport. They just don't like paying taxes.
That could be, I wouldn't rule that viewpoint out at all. BUT, I also don't rule out a militant group/foreign government who wants to make a point or see things started.
We go into Iran right now, that's going to weaken us as a nation(speaking US centric), I don't give a damn what the fiscally ignorant supporters of such action say to the contrary. Unless we were blessed with a magical quick decisive victory that the supporters of the Iraq Invasion were claiming we'd have 5 years ago, we would lose more than we would ever gain out of such an attack. A lot of people in power in other places know this and would love to see us fall on our faces.
Then again, why try to trip the fool who does such a fine job of tripping their self? Hard to read it honestly, bastards and liars on all sides. Trusting any of them is done at your own risk of being led down the merry path.
If this is the work of our spies, they aren't earning their salary. They're incompetent bastards who should be fired for lacking any type of stealth or subtlety.
How much tech do you really need to cut a cable? It doesn't seem like it would require much in the way of high tech capability. Given that these cables are communication lines carrying western influences into muslim countries, I would say that at this point, we should not rule out militant acts to make a statement about wanting a reduction of western influence.
If this is our spies, this would seem to be a pretty boneheaded execution of tapping lines. But, since they work for the government, we can't rule out boneheadedness. Or just really bizzarre random chance, though that's kind of hard for me personally to swallow at this point.
Do people not have the common sense to know that actions can follow you over time?
There's two cases where people just don't care. One is more common among the high school - college age and that's when you're living for the moment. It's one of the more common follies of youth, though it's not uncommon to see it among those experiencing a midlife crisis.
The other case is more common by older types and is an attitude that arises out of unchecked ambition, where the goals are perceived by the individual to be more urgent and more important than thinking about the consequences. The best known example of this thinking is President Bush's answer to Bob Woodward when asked "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" and he answered "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." This is the folly of unchecked(by reality) ambition.
What sucks in my opinion is, society has become so brutal and unforgiving for young people and this thing where the follies of your youth potentially captured by some asshat with a camera phone can now follow you for life is just one more example. My grandfather(RIP) shared with me some of the things he did back in the depression era, and had there be an internet and digital photography, maybe he would have been plagued by those things professionally?
I'd hate to be college aged during this current era with cameras everywhere. I did some things that, while not overtly evil, would definetly cause more conservative interviewers grave reservations about me. OTOH, I don't have a single friend who can't say the same thing. So maybe the answer is society needs to lighten the fuck up and let the old fronts and phoney public images of the past die. Generations before us worked hard to keep up phoney public appearances of a normality that never was "normal" or even realistic.
It's not LAN vs wireless, it's LAN vs WAN.
I got the WAN part, but for some reason, when I read it the first time I got wireless in my head. Weird. My argument still stands for the same reasons. That would be crazy to put your most sensitive data on a server directly connected to one big WAN shared by everyone.
It's one thing to have WLAN access to an intranet, it's another thing to ditch your LAN altogether and make every machine wireless. A WLAN access point to the intranet can be tightly controlled and monitored. You can, for example, make sure that extremely sensitive information can not be accessed through the WLAN. It's one thing to give everyone acces to their email and the ability to print from wireless devices(though even email could be at risk), it's another thing to let people access the crown jewels of the companies most sensitive data via wireless. I would be very surprised if that was the case at IBM.
I was assuming that in my response. I don't see the LAN disappearing in the next 10 years for the simple fact that a WLAN is less secure by its very nature than a LAN. Any corporation or entity with information worth stealing, isn't going to be getting rid of their LANs anytime soon. That would be insane. A LAN can have its access points physically secured and tightly controlled and monitored. You go wireless, and you've created a range where people can not only create their own potential access points, but snoop data broadcast over it. Even if it's encrypted, it can be recorded to be worked on cracking later.
Maybe there's some seriously groundbreaking wireless technology I'm not aware of about to take the IT world by storm, but barring that, I'll put money on the LAN having a long life to come. Certainly at least another 10 years, if not much more.
As an ex-Christian, I have every right to do so.
As a fellow ex-Christian, I didn't say you didn't. I was merely pointing out that bashing Christianity in general on a thread regarding the pope is just about as offtopic as bashing Islam on a thread regarding the Pope. The Pope may be a Christian, but you'll find about about a billion Christians on the planet that will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Pope does not speak for them.
... the lan isn't going to disappear, at least not in 10 years. Can you imagine IBM, a defense corp, a huge pharma, etc... ditching their lans for wireless? yeah right, not any time soon.
Why bash Islam in a thread about the Pope's latest inane proclamation?
Well, you did bash Christianity in general on a thread about the Pope...
Nice rationalization, so if a thief can't afford a CD it would be fine to steal the CD?
Nice comparison. If you steal a CD, you are depriving someone of property and you are indeed depriving them of the right to profit from that property. When you copy software, that does not happen. No one is deprived of anything, unless you were in a position to purchase the software in the first place and you decided you'd rather not pay just cuz you're a cheap bastard.
I realize the Hardware companies have profitted immensely from piracy
lmao. There's a switch. Paint the company that creates the market for the software to even be created to be profited from in the first place with dark shades because they profited form piracy. That's rich. I'm going to be laughing for hours at that spin.
but the copyright holder lost out on their right to profit from the distribution of the software
How? How does a copyright holder lose their right to profit if a copy goes to someone who couldn't buy it in the first place? There is no loss there. That's absurd. Where's the loss?
I hear all that. I "pirated" almost everything back then too. I was a poor kid and I had no money after saving up for half the cost of the computer(which my mom and grandparents matched for the other half). Those game companies didn't lose any sales to me, you can't get blood from a turnip afterall. In fact, Origin in particular would go on to benefit long term, as I played ULtima I, II, and III for free, and when IV came out, I had a job and bought a copy of that and V-VI later(and I would in turn influence my friends to buy copies as we all raced to win it first). I would never have bought those games later had I not played the first three installments, and there was no way I could have played them had I not been able to get free copies. In fact, getting hooked on games by being able to play them for free as a kid, directly led to all the money I've spent on games over the years since entering the work force.
That's one reason I'm convinced the "R" in "RIAA" stands for Retarded when they sue young people of poor or working class parents. Those are their future customers and that's a very shoddy way to prime them for sales when they finally come into their own money. Had Origin or an industry body backed by them pulled the same stunt on me, I'd have grown up hating them, and would have made it a point not to never give them a dime of my money.
but don't give out that not having a copy of the original is somehow beneficial!
it is if the original required some verification to use, like looking up something on a page in a manual that no one has anymore.
They will doubtless be discussed many, MANY times more.
I'll admit I'm ignorant of how it works in Australia, but here rights encroachment generally happens in one of two ways:
The politicians keep discussing it over the years and eventually it push it through, usually on the back of some shocking-to-the-public-conscience event. Like weapons regulations get tightened every time some little girl dies at the hands of some asshole who used a gun. See we can't hang him because we have to respect his civil rights so instead we limit the civil right to bear arms for everyone else while our system goes out of its way to put on a show of respecting the civil rights of the animal actually guilty of the crime.
The other way is that a politician or civil leader(often law enforcement officers) will make an outrageous demand, moving the bar of outrage causing comments substantially, then the actual steps taken, though they were unthinkable just a few years before, don't seem so bad.
Anyway, I hope that's not how your system works down there.
I think even in a more liberal society, I'll opt to wear clothing when it is -39C outside.
If it's -39C where you live, I think a clothing optional society is the least of your concerns.