Therefore, infringing upon people's freedoms is good, because most countries do it.
I am not saying all infringing laws are good. I am saying that some laws infringing on freedom of speech are good.
so one could want laws forbidding those things (not that I do) but still be opposed to copyright and be perfectly consistent
That is quite true but your stated opinion that any law infringing on free speech is not. We are not talking about everyone, we are talking about you. The reason we are so far off topic is that it seems that you are basing your opinion about copyright on your idea that there should be no limits on free speech. I am attempting to show how some limits on free speech are good. After that it is just where one draws the line at what is reasonable.
I'm saying that you shouldn't put words in my mouth.
I never stated that you said you were an anarchist. I said that I consider you an anarchist and you told me to not state my opinion.
I'd say getting government thugs to enforce monopolies over ideas is more like communism,
Considering that copyright, trademark and patent laws (all which deal with intellectual property) are all capitalist ideas I think you are way off.
Saying such things is the sign of a communist.
Communists love labeling things; bourgeois, capitalist pig, oppression of the people, comrade, etc.
I don't think you will find any country in the world that does not have libel/slander, uttering threats, blackmail laws or others that are reasonable limits on freedom of speech. It is a civilized precept that one can not say anything they want all the time. There are limits on all freedoms.
Unless I say I'm an anarchist, don't claim that I am one, you dirty communist, you.
Considering that primacy of personal freedoms and the a stance against most, if not all laws, are the hallmarks of anarchy I have no problem calling you an anarchist. Considering that the statements I have said align much more with the arch typical capitalist than communist I would say your label is way off. In a political sense what would you label yourself? By the way, not using labels is a sign of an anarchist.
few residential customers doing it is not an issue.
It is not an issue until someone goes to court and says "they can do it why can't I" and get a ruling to nullify that part of the TOS. Rules have to be applied to everyone or they become invalid.
Doesn't cost the ISP more to pass the traffic than it does to pass Skype client traffic.
Consumer grade prices are based on consumer grade usage. Consumers are people who sleep, have jobs, etc. Much of the time they are not using the net connection. There are basically physical limits on how much a person or small group of people can consume and that limit is far below the bandwidth limit. Contrast that with a commercial server that could be pumping out nearly bandwidth traffic 24/7. This high traffic costs money to support. That is why there is difference in pricing between consumer and commercial connections. If you want a commercial connection then pay for it. It is about charging different rates for commercial and non-commercial connections.
Sure, go ahead and balance my traffic equally with my neighbors.
Then it becomes a pay per use connection and nobody likes those. and It takes a lot more monitoring from the ISP side which will raise costs and prices. Also, if your traffic is similar to your neighbour's there is very little chance that the ISP will even look at it. The no commercial clause is really in there to have a legal basis for cutting off abusers.
There cannot be any balance with fundamental freedoms like free speech.
How about the laws against libel and slander. They restrict free speech and are a balance between free speech and the harm it does to the person libeled or slandered. Many freedoms have restrictions.
Don't pretend that not having copyright is the same as having anarchy; it's not even close.
I never said they were the same. I just meant that I understand that you are an anarchist and can see how you might have those views.
I would still be 100% opposed to it because it infringes upon people's freedoms,
Now I understand. You are an anarchist where personal freedom is king. Good luck with that.
Well, that's it. I don't expect an intelligent reply, because I know that you despise freedom and the free market and want 'safety' above all else.
No, I see balance between my personal freedoms and the personal freedoms of others. It is balance that allows society to work. I think that where you go wrong is seeing a difference between intellectual property and tangible property. To me, they are both the same.
In the court case, the FCC said its rules aren't common carrier regulations because "Verizon is free to offer or decline to sell broadband Internet access service to any end user. Verizon need not hold itself out to offer service indifferently to anyone.
Re-classifying them as common carrier would open up a whole different can of worms. The FCC is waiting for Congress to change the rules.
Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit
They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.
That is funny because it is so inaccurate; 1. Hayes is not a government scientist. In fact the EPA disagrees with him completely. 2. The fight is not against regulation but against statements being put out by Hayes 3. The environmental lobby has nothing to do with it. Hayes's quest for fame by bringing down a big corp might be.
Seems like a valid scientific tactic to see if his stidies are valid
ask journals to retract
If statements are inaccurate retraction may be warranted
set trap to entice him to sue
The company would like to sue but eve if they were proven right in court the company would come off as the bad guy.
investigate funding
is he being funded by a competitor to make our pesticide look bad? Does he have a financial based bias?
investigate wife
maybe his wife has a bias and is influencing him.
The main point is that none of these things has anything to do with following him or reading his emails. I like the quote about "asking questions to make him look foolish". Was one of those questions "What scientific studies done by people other than you back up your claims"?
The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.
Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.
In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur.
They tried but a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down their rules.
Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.
I notice how you responded to every statement except about the the one about how a copier will always have an economic advantage over the original producer of a product. That is the crux of the issue and you have no way of easily dismissing it. Copyrights remove that advantage.
Again, if someone can't figure out how to profit from their work,
There is no way to profit from a book if one day after publishing someone else can sell the same book for little more than the cost of production. Why would anyone write, promote or print a book if they know there is no way to make money by selling it? That reason is the justification for copyrights.
Surely you've noticed that censorship is often utilized in an effort to combat copyright infringement?
Examples please. I have an idea that you may be confusing copyright enforcement with censorship.If one can buy the same book or read it in a library instead of buying it from a copier it is not censorship as the information does get out.
Bottom line is... I don't think people are entitled to other people's money, nor are they entitled to monopolies.
But you seem to think people are entitled to other people's work which could be converted into money. By the way, in most countries copyright is a limited length monopoly. A creator has a limited time in which to make money then the creation becomes public domain. I think copyrights are too long but no copyrights is not a solution either.
hey don't deserve a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech rights and real private property rights.
Copying and selling someone else's work is not free speech..Free speech is saying what is in your mind not copying works of others. What "real private property rights" are you talking about? The only thing I see is denying the ability to use real property to steal from the creator.
A mere ad hominem attack that does nothing to debunk any of my arguments.
It was an attempt to get yourself out of your own self interest as a consumer and maybe look at it from the perspective of a creator. If you were talking facts then perspective would not make a different but we are talking thoughts and beliefs. Thoughts and beliefs change as perspective changes. Laws are built to take in everyone's perspective. Looking at the world from only one perspective (in your case a consumer who wants complete freedoms and lowest prices) is a very narrow view. Copyrights are a balance between the evils of monopoly and the economic advantage of copiers.
Humans are often greedy and selfish, so, supposing your statement is even true, I'd just be looking out for my own interests.
And we have many laws to protect people from greed. We don't allow food manufacturers to put in dangerous cheap chemical to make their food taste better. Copyright is a way of protecting the creator from the greed of others. Laws are what make a society. We make laws to ensure that self interest does not override the good of society.
It certainly wouldn't be because I'm somehow more 'correct' or moral than anyone else.
Then why did you play the morality card in your first post?
What is someone breaks in, gets command line access and uses trusted commands to send the data elsewhere. The hacker used trusted programs to do the breach so white list would not stop it.
Copyright has little to do with free speech. It is about copying the works of others and profiting from it. So someone who spends years writing a book should not make any money from it because someone else can by one copy and make millions of duplicates. Good luck getting many writers.
I just love flippant platitudes like "let the free market decide". The free market will always go with the cheaper option. The issue is that the copiers do not have the cost of creation so will always be able to undercut the creator. What you are basically saying is that the writer has no right to compensation for his time and creativity and it is fine for others to make millions of their backs.
I think you would sing a different tune if you ever wrote a popular book.
So you would believe it morally right for a big corporation to find excellent songs made by independent writer, produce them and make millions of dollars for no creative work while the original writer makes nothing. Copyright works both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
You can run your commercial server on a commercial connection problem solved.
Therefore, infringing upon people's freedoms is good, because most countries do it.
I am not saying all infringing laws are good. I am saying that some laws infringing on freedom of speech are good.
so one could want laws forbidding those things (not that I do) but still be opposed to copyright and be perfectly consistent
That is quite true but your stated opinion that any law infringing on free speech is not. We are not talking about everyone, we are talking about you. The reason we are so far off topic is that it seems that you are basing your opinion about copyright on your idea that there should be no limits on free speech. I am attempting to show how some limits on free speech are good. After that it is just where one draws the line at what is reasonable.
I'm saying that you shouldn't put words in my mouth.
I never stated that you said you were an anarchist. I said that I consider you an anarchist and you told me to not state my opinion.
I'd say getting government thugs to enforce monopolies over ideas is more like communism,
Considering that copyright, trademark and patent laws (all which deal with intellectual property) are all capitalist ideas I think you are way off.
Saying such things is the sign of a communist.
Communists love labeling things; bourgeois, capitalist pig, oppression of the people, comrade, etc.
I don't think you will find any country in the world that does not have libel/slander, uttering threats, blackmail laws or others that are reasonable limits on freedom of speech. It is a civilized precept that one can not say anything they want all the time. There are limits on all freedoms.
Unless I say I'm an anarchist, don't claim that I am one, you dirty communist, you.
Lets use your rules . Are you saying that I can't call you an anarchist? Are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
Unless I say I'm an anarchist, don't claim that I am one, you dirty communist, you.
Considering that primacy of personal freedoms and the a stance against most, if not all laws, are the hallmarks of anarchy I have no problem calling you an anarchist. Considering that the statements I have said align much more with the arch typical capitalist than communist I would say your label is way off. In a political sense what would you label yourself? By the way, not using labels is a sign of an anarchist.
few residential customers doing it is not an issue.
It is not an issue until someone goes to court and says "they can do it why can't I" and get a ruling to nullify that part of the TOS. Rules have to be applied to everyone or they become invalid.
There are lots of statements in that post with absolutely no documents corroborating it. Why should I believe anything you write without references.
Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.
Sure, which is why you have those studies peer reviewed by independent scientists.
And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...
Every new chemical has long term studies.
Read the original post. The poster was advocating deliberately damaging other parts of the laptop. That would probably be abuse.
Doesn't cost the ISP more to pass the traffic than it does to pass Skype client traffic.
Consumer grade prices are based on consumer grade usage. Consumers are people who sleep, have jobs, etc. Much of the time they are not using the net connection. There are basically physical limits on how much a person or small group of people can consume and that limit is far below the bandwidth limit. Contrast that with a commercial server that could be pumping out nearly bandwidth traffic 24/7. This high traffic costs money to support. That is why there is difference in pricing between consumer and commercial connections. If you want a commercial connection then pay for it. It is about charging different rates for commercial and non-commercial connections.
Sure, go ahead and balance my traffic equally with my neighbors.
Then it becomes a pay per use connection and nobody likes those. and It takes a lot more monitoring from the ISP side which will raise costs and prices. Also, if your traffic is similar to your neighbour's there is very little chance that the ISP will even look at it. The no commercial clause is really in there to have a legal basis for cutting off abusers.
There cannot be any balance with fundamental freedoms like free speech.
How about the laws against libel and slander. They restrict free speech and are a balance between free speech and the harm it does to the person libeled or slandered. Many freedoms have restrictions.
Don't pretend that not having copyright is the same as having anarchy; it's not even close.
I never said they were the same. I just meant that I understand that you are an anarchist and can see how you might have those views.
I don't care much about the law, obviously,
Yet more evidence of anarchistic tendencies.
None of those examples requires a server at the customer's house and therefore are not relevant. The restriction is about servers not browsing.
I would still be 100% opposed to it because it infringes upon people's freedoms,
Now I understand. You are an anarchist where personal freedom is king. Good luck with that.
Well, that's it. I don't expect an intelligent reply, because I know that you despise freedom and the free market and want 'safety' above all else.
No, I see balance between my personal freedoms and the personal freedoms of others. It is balance that allows society to work. I think that where you go wrong is seeing a difference between intellectual property and tangible property. To me, they are both the same.
Those are the ones who sponsored the bill. The article refers to many other who have made similar comments.
I agree but that has nothing to do with deliberately damaging other parts of the warrantied item. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Congress said don't do that.
The classification is the main issue:
In the court case, the FCC said its rules aren't common carrier regulations because "Verizon is free to offer or decline to sell broadband Internet access service to any end user. Verizon need not hold itself out to offer service indifferently to anyone.
Re-classifying them as common carrier would open up a whole different can of worms. The FCC is waiting for Congress to change the rules.
Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit
They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.
That is funny because it is so inaccurate;
1. Hayes is not a government scientist. In fact the EPA disagrees with him completely.
2. The fight is not against regulation but against statements being put out by Hayes
3. The environmental lobby has nothing to do with it. Hayes's quest for fame by bringing down a big corp might be.
Lets look at the tactics that were listed .
have his work audited by 3rd party,
Seems like a valid scientific tactic to see if his stidies are valid
ask journals to retract
If statements are inaccurate retraction may be warranted
set trap to entice him to sue
The company would like to sue but eve if they were proven right in court the company would come off as the bad guy.
investigate funding
is he being funded by a competitor to make our pesticide look bad? Does he have a financial based bias?
investigate wife
maybe his wife has a bias and is influencing him.
The main point is that none of these things has anything to do with following him or reading his emails. I like the quote about "asking questions to make him look foolish". Was one of those questions "What scientific studies done by people other than you back up your claims"?
The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.
The FCC tried.
Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.
In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur.
They tried but a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down their rules.
Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.
I am pretty sure that would fall under an abuse clause in the warranty.
I notice how you responded to every statement except about the the one about how a copier will always have an economic advantage over the original producer of a product. That is the crux of the issue and you have no way of easily dismissing it. Copyrights remove that advantage.
Again, if someone can't figure out how to profit from their work,
There is no way to profit from a book if one day after publishing someone else can sell the same book for little more than the cost of production. Why would anyone write, promote or print a book if they know there is no way to make money by selling it? That reason is the justification for copyrights.
Surely you've noticed that censorship is often utilized in an effort to combat copyright infringement?
Examples please. I have an idea that you may be confusing copyright enforcement with censorship.If one can buy the same book or read it in a library instead of buying it from a copier it is not censorship as the information does get out.
Bottom line is... I don't think people are entitled to other people's money, nor are they entitled to monopolies.
But you seem to think people are entitled to other people's work which could be converted into money. By the way, in most countries copyright is a limited length monopoly. A creator has a limited time in which to make money then the creation becomes public domain. I think copyrights are too long but no copyrights is not a solution either.
hey don't deserve a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech rights and real private property rights.
Copying and selling someone else's work is not free speech..Free speech is saying what is in your mind not copying works of others. What "real private property rights" are you talking about? The only thing I see is denying the ability to use real property to steal from the creator.
A mere ad hominem attack that does nothing to debunk any of my arguments.
It was an attempt to get yourself out of your own self interest as a consumer and maybe look at it from the perspective of a creator. If you were talking facts then perspective would not make a different but we are talking thoughts and beliefs. Thoughts and beliefs change as perspective changes. Laws are built to take in everyone's perspective. Looking at the world from only one perspective (in your case a consumer who wants complete freedoms and lowest prices) is a very narrow view. Copyrights are a balance between the evils of monopoly and the economic advantage of copiers.
Humans are often greedy and selfish, so, supposing your statement is even true, I'd just be looking out for my own interests.
And we have many laws to protect people from greed. We don't allow food manufacturers to put in dangerous cheap chemical to make their food taste better. Copyright is a way of protecting the creator from the greed of others. Laws are what make a society. We make laws to ensure that self interest does not override the good of society.
It certainly wouldn't be because I'm somehow more 'correct' or moral than anyone else.
Then why did you play the morality card in your first post?
What is someone breaks in, gets command line access and uses trusted commands to send the data elsewhere. The hacker used trusted programs to do the breach so white list would not stop it.
Copyright has little to do with free speech. It is about copying the works of others and profiting from it. So someone who spends years writing a book should not make any money from it because someone else can by one copy and make millions of duplicates. Good luck getting many writers.
I just love flippant platitudes like "let the free market decide". The free market will always go with the cheaper option. The issue is that the copiers do not have the cost of creation so will always be able to undercut the creator. What you are basically saying is that the writer has no right to compensation for his time and creativity and it is fine for others to make millions of their backs.
I think you would sing a different tune if you ever wrote a popular book.
So you would believe it morally right for a big corporation to find excellent songs made by independent writer, produce them and make millions of dollars for no creative work while the original writer makes nothing. Copyright works both ways.