>> The question you ask is does allowing it cause harm...
Presuming that there is a single authoritative source that can anser that question runs counter to faith, and belief, in a society's right to make their own political decisons in a democratic way. Why bother voting and electing representatives if someone, or something, can simply tell us what to do?
But, that isn't the case. Most important questions don't have simple verifiable answers.
Pornography is no different than any other issue. If a community wants to prevent the sale of something it has defined as pornography, then it can do so. As always, if someone disagrees, they can risk arrest by selling the stuff anyway, or take the political/judicial route and try to change the local law.
Whether or not pornography, or anything else, "should be" allowed is an argument that really doesn't interest me. There's too much danger from people who are convinced they know what "should be" and believe that secret knowledge gives them the right to do anything to force the rest of us to behave according to their beliefs.
Children aren't a "minority", but, in any case, this is a case in which the majority determine that children do no have the right to buy certain kinds of video games. It is a direct parallel of laws against selling alcohol to kids.
Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they have a right to it. That's expecially true for children, who arelegally wards of their parents.
Most people who lose in court think so. But, that's only a matter of one side's opinion. No legitimate arbiter of right and wrong exists. If it did, we would not need courts. We'd just petition that arbiter to make our decisions for us.
>>...... people in charge can do virtually anything if 51% of people, wrong 49% of the time, agree to it.
Well, that's democracy for you, letting the majority decide things.
>>...DC is hundreds of miles away. Should I go there...
No, let the people in DC worry about this, if they think it merits it.
>> Does the B. of R. only apply if the courts agree?
When a particular point is contested (like you're contesting this games for kids point) then the courts determine what the Bill of Rights means. That's the purpose of courts.
Yes, kids are dumber. That's why it takes humans 18 or so years to grow up.
IF you think the Bill of Rights protects merchants from selling certain video games to kids, regardless of the wishes of the voters in their community, have at it. No one will know if it does or not until you make a fuss and get it into the courts for resolution. Until then, that's just your opinion.
Absolutely, and it is the courts and the political process that makes that determination. What one individual, or many individuals, believe is just or unjust doesn't count unless they can sway enough voters to go alog with them. Fervor of belief is insufficient, as it should be.
Democracy isn't people chanting in the streets. Anyone with enough cash can get people into the streets.
If the people in DC want video games sold to kids, or they don't want call centers in the District, then they can elect a mayor and a council that agree.
However, I suspect that the voters in DC don't care enough about games, or call centers, or DRM to put those issues on the top of their agenda. Most normal people think jobs, health, education, etc., or more important than luxuries like video games.
>> Having worked in call centers as an occupation, I would say these degrade both men and women alike - should call centers be banned for this reason too?
Sure, if you can convince enough people to agree with you.
That's how democracy works, not by some elite deciding what is "right" but by the majority deciding what they want.
Slashdot's audience typically demands the "correct" answer, the "right" answer, the response that accords with the "facts". The typical rant, on any subject from Linux to TV shows, begins with the assumption that the poster is "right" and everyone else is wrong, and therefore, stupid. That's a waste of time and indicative of the immaturity of its audience. Real life isn't an engineering exercise.
Cities and states, via their elected representatives, already prohibit selling porn, alcohol, weapons, and tobacco to children. If they decide that "mature" games pose a similar threat, then they're within their rights to do so.
Those who disagree are also within their rights to rant, without effect, here. If they were interested more in actual change and less in ideological posturing, they might become active in political and legal efforts to convince the DC government to act otherwise.
And, remember, the notion that this won't stop kids from buying games is besides the point. All laws are violated.
If you can't recognize the difference between owning something and the various rights associated with that object, you're useless.
Of course, it is obvious that you can't, because all you've done is argue that you, not me, own what I make.
Greedy nonsense from someone who seeks only to justify theft.
I have no patience with someone whose only recourse is to deny, rather than explain and demonstrate. If you believe what you've been arguing, you ought to be able to present a justification for your beliefs that amounts to something more than insults and mindless rejection of my arguments. Stomping your feet and shouting "No" may work for children, but it doesn't work here.
If something does not exist, no one has any rights to it.
When I make something that did not exist before, I own it and all rights inherent in it. It is impossible for anyone else to possess either what I've made or have any rights to it at that point.
If your claim is correct -- that we get our rights from government -- then the government must have had rights in my creation before it existed. Rights cannot come form an entity that does not possess them. The only rights that government has are what the governed allow it. (Governments may restrict the exercise of rights, but that is not equivalent to eliminating those rights. E.g., a fascist government may arrest me for speaking, but I still retain my right to free speech.)
And, for the umpteenth time, the question of inherent in an object is not an issue of property. I can transfer ownership of my property without transfering the right to copy that property. Why? Because physical possession of an object and exclusive ownership of the rights inherent in that object are different things.
Your claim that there is no natural right to anything flies in the face of culture and civilization for the last few thousand years. It seems incumbent on you to justify this kind of specious assertion.
You have not done that because you have not demonstrated -- cannot -- the you can own what bring into existence if I do no transfer ownership to you.
More meaningless mumb jumbo. Don't take refuge in rantings about copyright and IP law. I've repeatedly said they are irrelevant to my argument. Or, are you wacky enough to believe that the concept of ownership did not exist prior to the passage of the first copyright law?
As I've said, over and over, what I make is mine, regardless if I make a book, a song, my dinner, or a clay pot.
You've claimed that you own what I make. You havn't explained how that happens.
My previous questions remains on the table, unanswered. If you know whay you are talking about, you'd be able to answer it.
I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I just said it isn't a free speech issue. The right to speak freely doesn't mean there are no consequences for that speech. Sometimes you say what you think and someone clobbers you. The right of free speech doesn't mean you have a right to escape the consequences of your speech.
In the U.S., Congress can pass no law restraining free speech. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit your employer from firing you.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I don't care what you believe.
I'm asking you questions and you're not answering them. All I see is bombast.
This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.
If you disagree, please explain how you can acquire something that belongs to me unless ownership is transfered to you. That's a basic question you've refused to answer. I can only assume that's because you cannot answer it. Neither can anyone else.
Wrong. I asked many question. You have answered none. Either cannot answer or you will not answer.
Besides, as I've stated, this is not an issue of fact. It is an issue of belief. If you are looking for the factual basis of rights and ownership, you are looking in vain.
When I make something, I own it and I own every right inherent in that object. You own nothing. If I want to sell you one of the rights to that object while I retain ownership of the object, I can. If I want to sell you a copy of the object, while I retain the original and all rights to it, I can.
If I sell you a copy and do not also sell you the right to make and distribute additional copies, you do not own that right.
None of this has any dependence on copyright law. it is a simple recognition of reality.
To argue otherwise, as you seem to be attempting to do, is to argue that copyright and IP law, not reality, establish ownership. That implies that every book and work of art created prior to the existence of copyright legislation was not owned by its creator, but was owned, by some mystical process, by someone else. That makes no sense.
You argument also implies that, if copyright and IP legislation were abolished tomorrow, then every author and every musician would lose ownership of their unpublished material. That's also nonsense.
You are arguing that someone other than an object's creator can rightfully possess that object, and all rights inherent in it, without that ownership being transferred to them by the creator, voluntarily or involuntarily. That is simply impossible.
If I make something, a book, or my dinner, how is it possible that you have any rights to it in any fashion whatsover if I do not give you those rights?
In the U.S., most private employees can be terminated just because the emploer wants to. Absent a union or individual contract that specifieds otherwise, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.
So, use your head. If you use any property that belongs to your employer to do anything your employer isn't paying you to do, you are putting your job at risk.
If you post to your blog only at home, tell the world who you work for, and then post opinion about your employer, you are putting your job at risk.
Is this a free speech issue? No, because your employer is not thwarting your right to post to your blog, even if you are fired.
You're vegetable argument makes sense only if my book develops seeds that develop into new, different, books. Last I knew that doesn't happen.
No one can own, no one has rights, to anything that doesn't exist. If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.
Ownership includes all rights inherent in an object. You're arguing that others, with no role in the creation of an object and with no awareness that it exists, have rights to it that its creator does not have. Please explain.
I.e., if I write a book, how do you come to acquire the right to benefit from it, and, therefore, to harm me? Explain.
If you're an ideological open-source zealot who believes in the socialist ownership of everything by everyone, come out of your closet and say so . Jow would you explain how you can own something that hasn't existed previously? You can't, because you're simply spouting emotional slogans pandered about by the emotionally juvenile. It's just an attempt to justify theft by a bunch of spoiled, antisocial misfits.
You're beyond hope. I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident. We have our rights ay birth, by virture of that birth. If, as you assert, our rights come from whatever majority happens to exist at a given moment, then how can you explain how those people got their right, or, in fact, the right to confer and deny our rights? Answer: you can't.
As for what constitutues a democratic government, it is one that is created by free and open elections. It is not one in which everyone gets to do exactly as they wish.
If you have serious arguments, present them. Otherwise, stop trolling.
For science fiction to succeed away from its own little niche of fans, it needs writers who can develop stories that appeal to a wide audience. After all, a bad science fiction story is, in the end, just another bad story.
The stories Enterprise has been telling since Coto became the showrunner are better, but Season Four is the wrong time to go after the audience the show should have sought in Season One.
The Star Trek franchise also suffers from the curse of its fans, many of whom give the earlier series a degree of respect they often didn't deserve. (Bad scripts and cheesy plots abounded there, too. Each series had wondetful moments of drama that inspired legitimate awe and wonder about humanity's future, but each series was also inconsistent, with frequent recourse to alien/disease of the week.)
But, every fan who insists that Trek scripts maintain continuity with their view of the Trek universe also hamstrings the writers, putting them in increasingly restrictive boxes.
A show like Babylon 5 survived thanks to consistently good scripts and adherence to one individual's vision. The notion that good stories begin with character development was at play there. But, any spinoff series would like have run into the same problems as happened to the Trek series.
So, my advice to Paramount is this: Go have a deep think. Pitch the next Trek series/movie to the general population. Bring in good writers, good actors, a good director. If Trek fandom values adherence to continuity more than good stories, tell them to take a one-way tranporter trip.
Possession, of a phyical object or of the right inherent in the ownership of that object, is a simple fact, buttressed by the law when needed. Force and coercion have nothing to do with it. (Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession.)
If you buy a copy a book I've marketed via a publisher, you've bought a legal copy of that book. You have not bought the right to make and distribute additional copies of that book. Why? Because I was the original and exclusive holder of that right and I sold (licensed) that right to a publisher. You have no way to legally acquire the right to copy and distribute that book if either I or its publisher don't won't to sell that right to you.
No one can "remove" or "take away" rights. They can prevent the exercise of rights, by force, fear, etc.. But the rights don't go away. They are still there, inherent in everyone, just as they've always been.
The primary questions I've asked of anti-copyright adherents are these: If I make something, do I not own it? If I own it, do I not own every potential benefit that might be derived from the use, reproduction, etc., of my creation? If you answer "no" to either of these questions, please offer your rationale. I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else unless I give it to them.
The person who creates something has all rights to it, and retains all rights to it unless he transfers those rights to someone else. Copyright laws differ regarding how much they recognize that reality.
Legislation, as should be obvious, does not determine right or wrong, or reality. What I make is mine. That includes every possible benefit I might acquire. If you believe differently, let's hear it.
When I make or write something, I own all right inherent in it, including the exclusive right to profit and benefit from copying and distributing that creation.
If you think you otherwise, please explain. Otherwise, it is impossible ofr you to acquire those rights unless they come from me.
Slashdot Mirror
>> The question you ask is does allowing it cause harm...
Presuming that there is a single authoritative source that can anser that question runs counter to faith, and belief, in a society's right to make their own political decisons in a democratic way. Why bother voting and electing representatives if someone, or something, can simply tell us what to do?
But, that isn't the case. Most important questions don't have simple verifiable answers.
Pornography is no different than any other issue. If a community wants to prevent the sale of something it has defined as pornography, then it can do so. As always, if someone disagrees, they can risk arrest by selling the stuff anyway, or take the political/judicial route and try to change the local law.
Whether or not pornography, or anything else, "should be" allowed is an argument that really doesn't interest me. There's too much danger from people who are convinced they know what "should be" and believe that secret knowledge gives them the right to do anything to force the rest of us to behave according to their beliefs.
Children aren't a "minority", but, in any case, this is a case in which the majority determine that children do no have the right to buy certain kinds of video games. It is a direct parallel of laws against selling alcohol to kids.
Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they have a right to it. That's expecially true for children, who arelegally wards of their parents.
>>......courts can be wrong...
Most people who lose in court think so. But, that's only a matter of one side's opinion. No legitimate arbiter of right and wrong exists. If it did, we would not need courts. We'd just petition that arbiter to make our decisions for us.
>>...... people in charge can do virtually anything if 51% of people, wrong 49% of the time, agree to it.
Well, that's democracy for you, letting the majority decide things.
>>...DC is hundreds of miles away. Should I go there...
No, let the people in DC worry about this, if they think it merits it.
>> Does the B. of R. only apply if the courts agree?
When a particular point is contested (like you're contesting this games for kids point) then the courts determine what the Bill of Rights means. That's the purpose of courts.
Yes, kids are dumber. That's why it takes humans 18 or so years to grow up.
IF you think the Bill of Rights protects merchants from selling certain video games to kids, regardless of the wishes of the voters in their community, have at it. No one will know if it does or not until you make a fuss and get it into the courts for resolution. Until then, that's just your opinion.
Absolutely, and it is the courts and the political process that makes that determination. What one individual, or many individuals, believe is just or unjust doesn't count unless they can sway enough voters to go alog with them. Fervor of belief is insufficient, as it should be.
Democracy isn't people chanting in the streets. Anyone with enough cash can get people into the streets.
If the people in DC want video games sold to kids, or they don't want call centers in the District, then they can elect a mayor and a council that agree.
However, I suspect that the voters in DC don't care enough about games, or call centers, or DRM to put those issues on the top of their agenda. Most normal people think jobs, health, education, etc., or more important than luxuries like video games.
>> Having worked in call centers as an occupation, I would say these degrade both men and women alike - should call centers be banned for this reason too?
Sure, if you can convince enough people to agree with you.
That's how democracy works, not by some elite deciding what is "right" but by the majority deciding what they want.
Slashdot's audience typically demands the "correct" answer, the "right" answer, the response that accords with the "facts". The typical rant, on any subject from Linux to TV shows, begins with the assumption that the poster is "right" and everyone else is wrong, and therefore, stupid. That's a waste of time and indicative of the immaturity of its audience. Real life isn't an engineering exercise.
Cities and states, via their elected representatives, already prohibit selling porn, alcohol, weapons, and tobacco to children. If they decide that "mature" games pose a similar threat, then they're within their rights to do so.
Those who disagree are also within their rights to rant, without effect, here. If they were interested more in actual change and less in ideological posturing, they might become active in political and legal efforts to convince the DC government to act otherwise.
And, remember, the notion that this won't stop kids from buying games is besides the point. All laws are violated.
If you can't recognize the difference between owning something and the various rights associated with that object, you're useless.
Of course, it is obvious that you can't, because all you've done is argue that you, not me, own what I make.
Greedy nonsense from someone who seeks only to justify theft.
I have no patience with someone whose only recourse is to deny, rather than explain and demonstrate. If you believe what you've been arguing, you ought to be able to present a justification for your beliefs that amounts to something more than insults and mindless rejection of my arguments. Stomping your feet and shouting "No" may work for children, but it doesn't work here.
If something does not exist, no one has any rights to it.
When I make something that did not exist before, I own it and all rights inherent in it. It is impossible for anyone else to possess either what I've made or have any rights to it at that point.
If your claim is correct -- that we get our rights from government -- then the government must have had rights in my creation before it existed. Rights cannot come form an entity that does not possess them. The only rights that government has are what the governed allow it. (Governments may restrict the exercise of rights, but that is not equivalent to eliminating those rights. E.g., a fascist government may arrest me for speaking, but I still retain my right to free speech.)
And, for the umpteenth time, the question of inherent in an object is not an issue of property. I can transfer ownership of my property without transfering the right to copy that property. Why? Because physical possession of an object and exclusive ownership of the rights inherent in that object are different things.
Your claim that there is no natural right to anything flies in the face of culture and civilization for the last few thousand years. It seems incumbent on you to justify this kind of specious assertion.
You have not done that because you have not demonstrated -- cannot -- the you can own what bring into existence if I do no transfer ownership to you.
Answer the question. Stop posturing.
How do you acquire the right to make and distribute copies if I own that right and don't sell or give it to you?
That's the question I've asked over and over again. You need to answer that question or explain how you can acquire that right in some other way.
You've avoided that fundamental point by resort to bombasy, verbiage and insult.
More meaningless mumb jumbo. Don't take refuge in rantings about copyright and IP law. I've repeatedly said they are irrelevant to my argument. Or, are you wacky enough to believe that the concept of ownership did not exist prior to the passage of the first copyright law?
As I've said, over and over, what I make is mine, regardless if I make a book, a song, my dinner, or a clay pot.
You've claimed that you own what I make. You havn't explained how that happens.
My previous questions remains on the table, unanswered. If you know whay you are talking about, you'd be able to answer it.
I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I just said it isn't a free speech issue. The right to speak freely doesn't mean there are no consequences for that speech. Sometimes you say what you think and someone clobbers you. The right of free speech doesn't mean you have a right to escape the consequences of your speech.
In the U.S., Congress can pass no law restraining free speech. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit your employer from firing you.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I don't care what you believe.
I'm asking you questions and you're not answering them. All I see is bombast.
This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.
If you disagree, please explain how you can acquire something that belongs to me unless ownership is transfered to you. That's a basic question you've refused to answer. I can only assume that's because you cannot answer it. Neither can anyone else.
Wrong. I asked many question. You have answered none. Either cannot answer or you will not answer.
Besides, as I've stated, this is not an issue of fact. It is an issue of belief. If you are looking for the factual basis of rights and ownership, you are looking in vain.
When I make something, I own it and I own every right inherent in that object. You own nothing. If I want to sell you one of the rights to that object while I retain ownership of the object, I can. If I want to sell you a copy of the object, while I retain the original and all rights to it, I can.
If I sell you a copy and do not also sell you the right to make and distribute additional copies, you do not own that right.
None of this has any dependence on copyright law. it is a simple recognition of reality.
To argue otherwise, as you seem to be attempting to do, is to argue that copyright and IP law, not reality, establish ownership. That implies that every book and work of art created prior to the existence of copyright legislation was not owned by its creator, but was owned, by some mystical process, by someone else. That makes no sense.
You argument also implies that, if copyright and IP legislation were abolished tomorrow, then every author and every musician would lose ownership of their unpublished material. That's also nonsense.
You are arguing that someone other than an object's creator can rightfully possess that object, and all rights inherent in it, without that ownership being transferred to them by the creator, voluntarily or involuntarily. That is simply impossible.
If I make something, a book, or my dinner, how is it possible that you have any rights to it in any fashion whatsover if I do not give you those rights?
In the U.S., most private employees can be terminated just because the emploer wants to. Absent a union or individual contract that specifieds otherwise, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.
So, use your head. If you use any property that belongs to your employer to do anything your employer isn't paying you to do, you are putting your job at risk.
If you post to your blog only at home, tell the world who you work for, and then post opinion about your employer, you are putting your job at risk.
Is this a free speech issue? No, because your employer is not thwarting your right to post to your blog, even if you are fired.
You're vegetable argument makes sense only if my book develops seeds that develop into new, different, books. Last I knew that doesn't happen.
No one can own, no one has rights, to anything that doesn't exist. If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.
Ownership includes all rights inherent in an object. You're arguing that others, with no role in the creation of an object and with no awareness that it exists, have rights to it that its creator does not have. Please explain.
I.e., if I write a book, how do you come to acquire the right to benefit from it, and, therefore, to harm me? Explain.
If you're an ideological open-source zealot who believes in the socialist ownership of everything by everyone, come out of your closet and say so
.
Jow would you explain how you can own something that hasn't existed previously? You can't, because you're simply spouting emotional slogans pandered about by the emotionally juvenile. It's just an attempt to justify theft by a bunch of spoiled, antisocial misfits.
You're beyond hope. I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident. We have our rights ay birth, by virture of that birth. If, as you assert, our rights come from whatever majority happens to exist at a given moment, then how can you explain how those people got their right, or, in fact, the right to confer and deny our rights? Answer: you can't.
As for what constitutues a democratic government, it is one that is created by free and open elections. It is not one in which everyone gets to do exactly as they wish.
If you have serious arguments, present them. Otherwise, stop trolling.
Sorry, but not surprised, to see it go.
For science fiction to succeed away from its own little niche of fans, it needs writers who can develop stories that appeal to a wide audience. After all, a bad science fiction story is, in the end, just another bad story.
The stories Enterprise has been telling since Coto became the showrunner are better, but Season Four is the wrong time to go after the audience the show should have sought in Season One.
The Star Trek franchise also suffers from the curse of its fans, many of whom give the earlier series a degree of respect they often didn't deserve. (Bad scripts and cheesy plots abounded there, too. Each series had wondetful moments of drama that inspired legitimate awe and wonder about humanity's future, but each series was also inconsistent, with frequent recourse to alien/disease of the week.)
But, every fan who insists that Trek scripts maintain continuity with their view of the Trek universe also hamstrings the writers, putting them in increasingly restrictive boxes.
A show like Babylon 5 survived thanks to consistently good scripts and adherence to one individual's vision. The notion that good stories begin with character development was at play there. But, any spinoff series would like have run into the same problems as happened to the Trek series.
So, my advice to Paramount is this: Go have a deep think. Pitch the next Trek series/movie to the general population. Bring in good writers, good actors, a good director. If Trek fandom values adherence to continuity more than good stories, tell them to take a one-way tranporter trip.
Possession, of a phyical object or of the right inherent in the ownership of that object, is a simple fact, buttressed by the law when needed. Force and coercion have nothing to do with it. (Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession.)
If you buy a copy a book I've marketed via a publisher, you've bought a legal copy of that book. You have not bought the right to make and distribute additional copies of that book. Why? Because I was the original and exclusive holder of that right and I sold (licensed) that right to a publisher. You have no way to legally acquire the right to copy and distribute that book if either I or its publisher don't won't to sell that right to you.
You're not using the language properly.
No one can "remove" or "take away" rights. They can prevent the exercise of rights, by force, fear, etc.. But the rights don't go away. They are still there, inherent in everyone, just as they've always been.
The primary questions I've asked of anti-copyright adherents are these: If I make something, do I not own it? If I own it, do I not own every potential benefit that might be derived from the use, reproduction, etc., of my creation? If you answer "no" to either of these questions, please offer your rationale. I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else unless I give it to them.
The person who creates something has all rights to it, and retains all rights to it unless he transfers those rights to someone else. Copyright laws differ regarding how much they recognize that reality.
Legislation, as should be obvious, does not determine right or wrong, or reality. What I make is mine. That includes every possible benefit I might acquire. If you believe differently, let's hear it.
Nonsense.
When I make or write something, I own all right inherent in it, including the exclusive right to profit and benefit from copying and distributing that creation.
If you think you otherwise, please explain. Otherwise, it is impossible ofr you to acquire those rights unless they come from me.