It's would be just about impossible to make significant profits off games if people had easy free access to them after corporations spend millions designing them.
You can't impose copyrights in the information age without microregulating the information people use and restricting peoples freedoms. Maybe in an environment where we do have freedom in the information age, the entertainment industries can't make as much of a profit. I really don't give a ratts ass. I like star wars and video games, but not that much.
You don't get it. This isn't about copyrights and "compensation". It is about free speech and who controlls information in the information age. In spite of media propaganda, there is nothing wrong or unethical at all with copying stuff.
Nazis? Sure why not. After all, how can you enforce copyrights without an omni intrusive authority?
First, the language accepts 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement' to be synonymous. Deal with it.
No. The language also accepts 'nigger' and 'a person of color' to be synonymous, but I don't care about what the language accepts, but rather the way the language conveys the facts.
Secondly, the morality of copyright doesn't even compare to the morality of racial segregation
You're right, copyrights are worse because in the information age there is no technology that can naturally distinguish between free speech content and copyright content. At least Rosa Parks was able to secure the right to speak up forherself.
So, lets go back to that morality angle. You are implying that it is perfectly moral for a person to go buy an XBox with 70+ games preloaded on it. The publishers of those 70+ games now make no money. They decide it is not profitable to make XBox games anymore. Programmers, game designers, etc. are very unhappy, as the publisher refuses to pony up the cash to make another XBox game.
If that happens, then it happens. Maybe the entertainment industry won't get as much dough, and will get a smaller proportion with the copyright system dead. Sorry, but freedom from controll over information is more valuable to society than star wars.
Now, you can warp that morality angle and convince yourself you are in the right because Microsoft gets no software licensing money...
Like I really care if microsoft makes or looses billions off of this. That is completely irrelavent. This is about controll of information in the information age, if you want to sacrifice that for the sake of video games then I feel sorry for you.
... is that accepting copyrights is the same as accepting that is OK to have an information police state for the sake of "protecting" video games. While I like video games the same as the next guy, giving people hard time for illegal copying (and modding) is a morally shallow solution no matter how you look at it. Which means that this raid was unjust no matter how you look at it too.....
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
No matter how you look at it, people are still up against hard time for simply copying and modding stuff. No, there is still plenty to say because, like as with most copyright related "crimes". These people are not criminals, and the punishment is WAY WAY out of line in relation to the supposed harm done to society.
Now if in addition they robbed a bank, and beat an old lady and left her for dead... then I might have some sympathy, but then again that wouldn't be charged as a DMCA crime would it?
This is not a "Your rights online" story, it's a story about blatent copyright violation.
Listen to what you're saying. These people aren't bank robbers, rapists, con artists, gangsters - they are simply copying and modding stuff, and for that they are going to get hard time? WTF, next time someone drives 5mph over the speed limit - would you recommend death by lethal injection? Next time someone someone fails to report that extra 50 cent tip they made on their taxes, would you recommend life imprisonment? (with boy lover bubba) Next time someone tears the label off the matress, how about just skipping the trial and beat the F*** out of them right there... really, I sense a serious values problem here.
Microsoft is a hypocrite, if they support these kinds of punishments for simply copying - then I can only imagine what they deserve to get for anti trust behavior themselves.
First off, it's not piracy it's illegal copying. The fact that they have to call it piracy when it clearly has nothing to do with boarding a ship and killing people should tell you something about the nature of the accusors. And second off, just becasue it's illegal - doesn't mean that it's the slightest bit wrong, or that it is the slightest bit just or acceptable that these people were attacked. They were serving their customers, and they wern't harming others. That's what businesses (unlike Microsoft) are supposed to do.
Would you be out there cheering, "she got what she deserved because she broke the law", when Rosa-Parks was arrested for not going to the back of the bus? It is only shallow people who see right, wrong, and law in that way.
From other comments made by RMS, I don't think he understands all freedoms like free trade.
It's funny how RMS can understand freedom in the software movement, but when it comes to other freedoms like - buying and selling at a price not interfered with by the government, or buying from another country, or hiring from or working in another country - he seems not to understand freedom at all.
If I have the money, and someone else is willing to give me something for it, or do something for it, voluntairlly without coercion or harm to others - then why in the world should the government be involved at all.
The content industry probably realised that they are doomed, and so is now trying to save themselves by offering ISP's a cut to get them into the action. Good luck, they'll need it.
There was a time, that is, shortly after six million people were singled out and genocided, that you didn't need to explain to European leaders why privacy and anonomity rights were a big deal. What the hell is going on over there????
READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. In the USA, the Federalist Papers were written and posted on trees in public areas, often where roads intersected, and often without an acknowledged author. From this came the understanding that the right to free speech AND the right to your privacy is a right that exists above government and not as just a "luxury".
My point about the billions of people is that there is always going to be somebody worse off than you are, a lot of somebodys. If the world ran off the attitude that it's alright to for govt to take from people because they have for others who dont - then nobody will get nowhere.
Perhaps I got the law name wrong, but my point was that freeways were being privately created before the government ever did. When the government went into the freeway business, it pretty much killed that industry. So the premise that roads and infrastructure won't be created unless the money for it is coerced from the masses is wrong.
The railroads are not a good example, the government paid them 40K per mile of track they laid at taxpayers expense, which is a lot of money now, but a fortune back then. Not to mention, lots of other regulations that kept new entrants out. Like most industries that act abbusive - the biggest and easiest tool for them to use is government, which is why it's a good idea to limit its ability to take from people.
Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.
Maybe I missed something in one of the parent posts, but I don't have a problem with government in the form "lets organise together to secure and protect our liberties", but as for government of the form "lets organize to grab a bunch of freebies coerced at others expense" - I have a huge problem with that. Right now, government has encroached on too many freedoms, which is why working to limit its power to take from people is a worthy cause.
Slashdot Mirror
It's would be just about impossible to make significant profits off games if people had easy free access to them after corporations spend millions designing them.
You can't impose copyrights in the information age without microregulating the information people use and restricting peoples freedoms. Maybe in an environment where we do have freedom in the information age, the entertainment industries can't make as much of a profit. I really don't give a ratts ass. I like star wars and video games, but not that much.
Shoplifting 77 boxed games from Walmart is worth 1-3 years hard time in your county lock-up or state pen on the felony charge.
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it - Walmart still has their original coppies. Get it.
in spite of the propaganda that the media industry feeds us, the simple truth is that there is nothing wrong with copying stuff.
You don't get it. This isn't about copyrights and "compensation". It is about free speech and who controlls information in the information age. In spite of media propaganda, there is nothing wrong or unethical at all with copying stuff.
Nazis? Sure why not. After all, how can you enforce copyrights without an omni intrusive authority?
They're copying things and selling them when they have no right to do that.
Sure they do. I can make a copy of the post you created and sell that too if I wanted - there is every right to do that.
So you're saying, all games for the xbox should be free?
I really don't care if MS makes a million per xbox sold. This isn't about that, it's about criminalizing people who copy in the information age.
The loss is easy to define, they lost sales.
So what, that is'nt a violation. Ford lost sales when toyota's entered the market too.
First, the language accepts 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement' to be synonymous. Deal with it.
No. The language also accepts 'nigger' and 'a person of color' to be synonymous, but I don't care about what the language accepts, but rather the way the language conveys the facts.
Secondly, the morality of copyright doesn't even compare to the morality of racial segregation
You're right, copyrights are worse because in the information age there is no technology that can naturally distinguish between free speech content and copyright content. At least Rosa Parks was able to secure the right to speak up forherself.
So, lets go back to that morality angle. You are implying that it is perfectly moral for a person to go buy an XBox with 70+ games preloaded on it. The publishers of those 70+ games now make no money. They decide it is not profitable to make XBox games anymore. Programmers, game designers, etc. are very unhappy, as the publisher refuses to pony up the cash to make another XBox game.
If that happens, then it happens. Maybe the entertainment industry won't get as much dough, and will get a smaller proportion with the copyright system dead. Sorry, but freedom from controll over information is more valuable to society than star wars.
Now, you can warp that morality angle and convince yourself you are in the right because Microsoft gets no software licensing money...
Like I really care if microsoft makes or looses billions off of this. That is completely irrelavent. This is about controll of information in the information age, if you want to sacrifice that for the sake of video games then I feel sorry for you.
probably the movie industry, who also tells you that copying stuff is like boarding a ship and murdering people (Piracy)
Someone isn't getting paid for a game they made(loss)
By that definition, it's a loss even if noone buys the game because it's overpriced.
A content creator deserves to be compensated for their creation,
I'm sure they do, but that's a lot different than saying they should have the right to sue and toss anyone in the slammer anyone who coppies stuff.
no it doesn't, copying is not stealing. logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.
In case the subject needs any more explanation, please see....
9 258&mode=nocommentd =12354088
http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/132
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147420&ci
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
No matter how you look at it, people are still up against hard time for simply copying and modding stuff. No, there is still plenty to say because, like as with most copyright related "crimes". These people are not criminals, and the punishment is WAY WAY out of line in relation to the supposed harm done to society.
Now if in addition they robbed a bank, and beat an old lady and left her for dead ... then I might have some sympathy, but then again that wouldn't be charged as a DMCA crime would it?
This is not a "Your rights online" story, it's a story about blatent copyright violation.
Listen to what you're saying. These people aren't bank robbers, rapists, con artists, gangsters - they are simply copying and modding stuff, and for that they are going to get hard time? WTF, next time someone drives 5mph over the speed limit - would you recommend death by lethal injection? Next time someone someone fails to report that extra 50 cent tip they made on their taxes, would you recommend life imprisonment? (with boy lover bubba) Next time someone tears the label off the matress, how about just skipping the trial and beat the F*** out of them right there ... really, I sense a serious values problem here.
Microsoft is a hypocrite, if they support these kinds of punishments for simply copying - then I can only imagine what they deserve to get for anti trust behavior themselves.
First off, it's not piracy it's illegal copying. The fact that they have to call it piracy when it clearly has nothing to do with boarding a ship and killing people should tell you something about the nature of the accusors. And second off, just becasue it's illegal - doesn't mean that it's the slightest bit wrong, or that it is the slightest bit just or acceptable that these people were attacked. They were serving their customers, and they wern't harming others. That's what businesses (unlike Microsoft) are supposed to do.
Would you be out there cheering, "she got what she deserved because she broke the law", when Rosa-Parks was arrested for not going to the back of the bus? It is only shallow people who see right, wrong, and law in that way.
Ahh, but the act of restricting what people can copy (copyrights) is an act of coercion.
From other comments made by RMS, I don't think he understands all freedoms like free trade.
It's funny how RMS can understand freedom in the software movement, but when it comes to other freedoms like - buying and selling at a price not interfered with by the government, or buying from another country, or hiring from or working in another country - he seems not to understand freedom at all.
If I have the money, and someone else is willing to give me something for it, or do something for it, voluntairlly without coercion or harm to others - then why in the world should the government be involved at all.
This is proof that patents hinder collaberation in a way that causes more harm than good, rather than incentivize creation as is the party line.
The content industry probably realised that they are doomed, and so is now trying to save themselves by offering ISP's a cut to get them into the action. Good luck, they'll need it.
that wasn't a slight nitpick, and thank you for pointing that out, and my deepest appologies to anyone offended
There was a time, that is, shortly after six million people were singled out and genocided, that you didn't need to explain to European leaders why privacy and anonomity rights were a big deal. What the hell is going on over there????
READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. In the USA, the Federalist Papers were written and posted on trees in public areas, often where roads intersected, and often without an acknowledged author. From this came the understanding that the right to free speech AND the right to your privacy is a right that exists above government and not as just a "luxury".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
My point about the billions of people is that there is always going to be somebody worse off than you are, a lot of somebodys. If the world ran off the attitude that it's alright to for govt to take from people because they have for others who dont - then nobody will get nowhere.
Perhaps I got the law name wrong, but my point was that freeways were being privately created before the government ever did. When the government went into the freeway business, it pretty much killed that industry. So the premise that roads and infrastructure won't be created unless the money for it is coerced from the masses is wrong.
The railroads are not a good example, the government paid them 40K per mile of track they laid at taxpayers expense, which is a lot of money now, but a fortune back then. Not to mention, lots of other regulations that kept new entrants out. Like most industries that act abbusive - the biggest and easiest tool for them to use is government, which is why it's a good idea to limit its ability to take from people.
Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.
Maybe I missed something in one of the parent posts, but I don't have a problem with government in the form "lets organise together to secure and protect our liberties", but as for government of the form "lets organize to grab a bunch of freebies coerced at others expense" - I have a huge problem with that. Right now, government has encroached on too many freedoms, which is why working to limit its power to take from people is a worthy cause.