"Slashdotters, like most people I guess, don't like it when someone gets off on a "technicality". People often wish the law employed more common sense when determine verdicts."
It's even worse than this. How about bitching about how the copyright laws needing to be repealed, yet supporting GNU violation lawsuits, which rely on exactly the same laws.
"me and the rest of the more level-headed and more lucid and clearly much larger majority in this country will drag the fringe minority of howling morons on the right into the 21st century, and up to the obvious and uncontroversial (unless you are a moron) standards enjoyed in the rest of the industrialized world"
Right. Because you know what you are talking about and anyone that has an opinion other than your own is a moron. This is the main reason why I hate the democratic party. Elitism.
If you are talking about standards, the US has the best quality of health care in the world. The problem is that not as many people have access to it.
The reason the costs are so high is because the actual fees charged are hidden from the patient (the insurance company absorbs it). If we got rid of the insurance companies (or had insurance for major surgeries only) and allowed a direct relationship between the patient and hospital, we would see a drastic decrease on overall costs. Mainly because the hospitals wouldn't be able to do things like charge $150 for Aspirin.
"and this healthcare reform is clearly more fiscally sound than the status quo that existed before this legislation was signed on tuesday. do you honestly believe otherwise?"
Pretty much every large-scale government run program is either bankrupt, inefficient, lacks quality, or a mix of all three. Just looking at the past, It's pretty easy (for an intelligent person at least) to see that a government run health care program will not work in the long run. I don't even think the US has anything that can compare to a program like this.
If the president is so convinced that everyone wants this, why don't we allow people to opt out? If I want to have private care, I now have to pay for both.
"Crime is indeed a fact of life, but I really don't think poverty is the only motivating factor. Chances are most people who steal bikes in major cities do it for drugs, which I suppose might be related to poverty, but I wouldn't really call that the cause. Greed and laziness is more of an issue I think, laziness also being a cause of much poverty."
I agree with this.
If someone is so poor they can't afford to eat, they could try to find a job instead of stealing your bike. Even Fast food places will hire people with no skills. The money isn't great, but you would still be able to buy food.
I'm really sick of people excusing criminals because they are a product of a bad environment. We do have something called free will.
"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"
Because children are abused during the making of child pornography. You really don't understand this?
"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks."
I bet it still happens. Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market. You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).
"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography."
If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem. These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.
"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents."
We already do. Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents. It's also not always the parent. Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).
"Zero control over my purchases? Zero re-sale value when I'm tired of a game? Zero incentive for publishers to discount their titles? Zero bandwidth & gaming ability remaining once I hit my cap? Zero ability to take my games with me once the company goes belly-up (and boy, will it ever...)? All for the low, low price of $15/mo? Sign me up!"
It's the same with Netflix. Unless you are illegally ripping the DVDs. You aren't buying games, you are renting them.
"And it's not like the advertisers are losing money on it - you'd never buy anything from an ad."
This is the same excuse I hear about software piracy. The problem isn't with people like you. The problem is that it's being installed on people's computers that would click on the ads, but never see them in the first place. As this happens more and more, more people will expect and ad-less Internet, which will make it very difficult for people to make money (or even pay for the hosting to run these sites).
"I would never even click on an ad. They're not losing any business by me blocking ads, and anyway I'm not obligated to render every piece of data that comes in on the wire exactly as they want me to render it."
This is fine for you. But, what if Comcast decided to block Youtube because they wanted you to go to their video site. Hell, what if they redirected it through DNS? According to your logic, they should be able to do render it however they want.
"There are ads on/.? I did not know that. I block all ads all the time."
You are part of the problem.
"Advertisers already own all the private spaces. That's fine that is *their* space. They also own most of the public spaces. That's not so fine. They DO NOT OWN my computer screen. That space is mine to do with whatever I want."
Yeah, but you don't own the servers you are connecting to. Content providers do.
"If they don't want to serve up content to people that block ads, then I'll just go somewhere else. End of story."
Good luck with that. Eventually, you will be left with shit content, because all of the good content creators will have left.
You sound like a child that doesn't know how the world works. Even Slashdot needs to be able to pay their bills. Hosting a website that gets millions of visitors/month costs money.
There was an article I read recently about the current youth feeling entitled to everything. Many of the posts here (including yours) are proving this article right.
"How about we geeks make a deal with Ars? We will agree to whitelist them on our Adblock plugins and in return they will agree to run TEXT ONLY ads clearly marked as such, ala Google sponsored links, that are relevant to the content actually being viewed. How about that Ars? Sounds reasonable doesn't it? No more flash and no more bullshit pop culture nonsense ads. Sounds fair to me."
That sounds like you are blackmailing them. Why would they ever agree to this?
Have you ever installed adblock plus for Firefox? Google ads are disabled by default.
The problem isn't that individual sites are blocked. It's that entire sites get their ads blocked, before some users ever have a chance to see them.
"On the subject of propaganda, does an American view the Super Bowl as basically a couple of hours of propaganda? The "this great nation of ours" message is spread a bit thick. Is it propaganda to have the color red in a communist country but patriotism to have the US flag on everything in the US?"
Not really. Propaganda is when the North Korea government tell its people that they need to prepare for war because the US is after them.
Even having the color red isn't propaganda. How does the superbowl have anything to do with propaganda? commerialism..maybe..but propaganda is a bit of a stretch. But, I think you knew this already. It sounds like you want a reason to hate the US.
"Exactly, large groups of people, who have no other options and no real security, do not change."
No, they do change because if they don't, they will be stuck with no options or security forever. Most people that I know that are in this position do everything in their power to better themselves.
"Large groups of people who are secure and have options do change."
If you are comfortable and secure, what's the purpose of changing? Changing requires lots of effort, which many times also needs a catalyst.
"Really now. Because modern research and experiment shows that people do not continue to rely on safety nets."
I'm not sure where you saw this "modern research", but most people take the path of least resistance.
"People are motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity, not self interest."
If this were true, we wouldn't need locks on our doors, or even a police force.
"Look up games theory and games like the Dictator Game. People make choices, even when large sums of real money are on the line, that are not in their own self interest, but motivated by fairness."
What works well in theory many times does not work well in practice.
"They do it because people below the age of 50 just don't respond to the scary FUD about "socialism" that the Right relied upon during the second half of the 20th century."
The reason they don't respond is:
1) They don't have very much experience 2) They have never experienced living in a country that is socialist 3) Many don't have jobs and/or are living with their parents and don't think about the fact that a large percentage of their paycheck is going to the government
"Anybody who's done a little traveling or read a few books knows that "socialism" is quite successful in industrialized, western nations."
Reading about socialism and vacationing in a socialist country is much different than living in one. I don't consider a 60% income tax a success. It is a sacrifice of freedom for comfort, which is the direct result of socialism.
"The people who try to spread the FUD are still depending upon ignorance to try to spread their lies."
Everyone that doesn't agree with you is "ignorant". That's why they don't have the same opinion..right?
"Yes, because there's obviously only one way of applying socialism, and there's obviously no such thing as a mixed economy."
We already have a mixed economy here in the US. There are tons of social program already in place.
"The irony of the matter is that those red states where the Tea Parties mass are actually heavily subsidized [ohio-state.edu] by the blue states. Farm subsidies are just one example; military spending, another."
Well, the people that pay the most subsidies (IE: the rich) use them the least. Why don't we ever discuss this fact?
"It's funny how people who are trying to demonize socialism only see North Korea and seem to ignore all the European countries who have used socialist policies to such excellent result, including Germany, which is doing much better economically than the US atm."
I think we have a different definition of success. In Denmark, a highly socialized country, around 60% of your income goes towards taxes. In addition to this, everything is more expensive because of the VAT tax (all countries in the EU have this tax), so you have less money to spend overall.
Being able to make money is freedom to me because if you have enough money, you can go anywhere you want.
Some social programs are necessary, but too many breeds laziness and a lifetime reliance on the government.
If you enjoy being treated like worthless meat whose sole purpose is to be exploited by others, good luck with that (and don't forget to pay the cover charge)......but that doesn't oblige the rest of us to lick the hands that feed, like dogs."..and some people find a job somewhere else, rather than putting a stranglehold on the people that are employing us. You aren't entitled to a job or a specific wage. Just like companies aren't entitled to the work that you perform (or to have customers buy their products).
I would never join a union, because I don't want to be limited by the abilities of every other union member that works in my department. Unions seem to benefit people that are lazy/don't have the skills to get paid more than a decent wage.
They were once good, but are now a tool of the left to fuck over corporations and support specific political candidates (During Obama's campaign, I got at least 10 different unions calling me and telling me to vote for him). Hell, Obama gave the auto-industry over to the unions and had specific exceptions for them in the most recent health care bill.
If anyone is exploited, it's the union members. They become reliant on the Union and vote based on the fact that they don't want their fat benefits taken away. It's very similar to how the right uses churches and religion to sway the vote.
"Considering that DRM never works yet always pisses off some consumers, wouldn't the sweet spot then be no DRM?"
During the time of Napster, there was no DRM. Did this solve the piracy issue? You can get music now for 99 cents, which was the major gripe of many people (albums were too expensive). Did piracy decrease?
The new anti-pirate system is just a natural progression of technology. Companies now realize that selling software directly doesn't work anymore.
They are doing what everyone has been screaming about for the last 5 years. They found another business model that will work: software as a service. There isn't much you can do about it except compete and actually create something better.
If you want to blame someone, you can blame the pirates and the blatant disregard for intellectual property and copyrights.
I could get behind a group that actively tried to compete with the recording industry by allowing artists to make a fair amount of money on their albums. This would truly be a revolution in the industry.
The problem is that this is very difficult and I don't really think the majority of people sharing content really want to help out the content creators. They just want free shit, which is just sad.
"They don't, but then people who license their work under the GNU aren't usually suing grandmothers who don't own computers for license violation."
It's because grandmothers aren't the ones violating the GNU license. The people being sued for GNU violations are companies (large and small) and it's just as wrong.
I know you were trying to make a point, but if a grandmother is being sued, it's probably because of a relative that is sharing copyrighted material.
"They also aren't lobbying the government for special protection to erode consumer rights and fair use provisions."
If they had the money, they would. Many people in the community would like it if all forms of copyright were abolished (Stallman even said himself that this is the eventual goal of the FSF), which in my eyes, is lobbying against my rights as a copyright holder. I'm glad Stallman is a smelly, dirty, kook. Most people with any kind of power in the US don't take him seriously.
"Their lawsuits are generally regarding straight-up copyright infringement by other publishers who are profiting from someone else's copyrighted work."
That sure doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Freedom is the BSD license. Which allows you to do anything you would like with the source code.
Governments and people in countries like Brazil shouldn't be considered pirates for using GNU software. However, they most likely are using GNU software because they don't want or have the money to spend on proprietary software. Many of these countries also do not enforce our copyright laws and piracy is rampant (china for example). So why would a company even consider trying to sell anything to them if they know it's just going to get pirated with no recourse?
I would respect the community a little more if the majority of the people in it weren't so zealous about destroying the commercial software industry.
"They're trying to convince us all that they are, as industries, entitled to exist, and entitled to a governmental guarantee of profitability. They're trying to convince us that copyright was always considered an inalienable human right, and that authors of creative works have always been entitled to absolute control of their creations in perpetuity. Further, they're trying to convince us that they, the publishers, are the true authors of these works. The guy who wrote the song or the novel, the band who performed the song, the developer who actually wrote the code-- these people are just employees. They're assistants in the process, but the company who funded the work is the true author, and the only one entitled to protection."
I have heard this argument since '99 (when Napster first came out) and I'm really getting tired of it. Right now, artists, developers, and musicians can sell their work online with no company behind them, and they do.
The problem is that piracy still hasn't slowed down. In fact, it's gotten even worse. Why is that? Maybe because your argument is a thinly veiled attempt to justify your own selfishness. If something is not worth the money, don't pirate it or use it. It will send a message to the original creator that they need to try something new. When it is pirated, people are getting use out of it, but they just don't want to pay for it.
I might be able to get behind the GNU/free software movement if they weren't only there to push their own pseudo-political movement. The free software foundation has many lawyers that go after companies in court every day for violating the GNU license. Why do GNU license holders have any more rights than the people trying to protect their IP?
"If you bothered to read, he *buys* the games and then plays the pirated version because it doesn't have the limitation. It is pig arses like YOU that clog up slashdot with useless fucking trolls after not even reading the post you are replying to. Many of us *buy* the game but play a pirated version for convenience. The main bitch isn't paying $50, it is paying $50 for something you can't play the way you want to, or at all."
"Troll" is a convenient word used for people you don't agree with. It's a way to instantly silence your opposition.
I seriously doubt that the majority of people pirating games go out and buy it as an act of good will.
You act as if game developers need to follow exactly what you say or you are just going to pirate it anyway. It just doesn't work this way.
This sounds very similar to the arguments about music piracy made when Napster first came out. I remember things such as: "$20 is just too expensive for a CD". Now that there are many more options and you can get songs for 99 cents, there is more piracy than ever. Even look at apple store apps. They are 99 cents, and the good ones are still heavily pirated.
Most people just don't want to spend their hard-earned money on something they know they can get for free. DRM and other copy protection schemes are just a natural reaction to this. Piracy was around long before DRM.
The only companies that can stay profitable are the ones that can prevent piracy somehow (either a copy-protection scheme or running a service).
"2) they don't want to actually make someone feel bad for messing up (WTF?!?!?)"
I'm not surprised. Even when I was in elementary school (I'm 28 now), we would have baseball games where nobody would win. The game would be played all the way up until the last inning and the teacher would just call it a tie. How does this teach us anything about life? In life, there are clear winners and losers, and kids need to know how to be both.
"Children are indoctrinated into this idea that one puff fries your brain forever. Then they meet someone, and this someone shows them that they can smoke it and the next day they're back to normal."
One puff may not fry your brain, but all the people I knew in high school that smoked pot were lazy and pretty much only cared about smoking more pot. Could they have been this way before the pot? Some were, most were not.
Some people also have an addictive personality, which makes them more prone to things like pot (and other addictive drugs). Since we don't really know if someone will get addicted or not, why take the chance?
"Intelligent people who use recreational drugs do not just "feel like trying something else." Only idiots who are already prone to ruining their life would blithely consider the consumption of unknown substances without rigorous personal research."
Ha. I seriously doubt there are that many people doing "personal research" before putting drugs in their system.
"Actually, I think he said that legalizing it won't cause new problems in the form of a wave of new addicts for whom the only thing that was holding them back was criminalization. I don't see anything in his comment about legalization solving problems."
how do you know?
I think a lot of people might be more willing to try it if they see it sold at the local 7-11, which will result in more addicts. I wonder what the number of alcoholics in the US compares to the number of drug addicts?
Slashdot Mirror
"Slashdotters, like most people I guess, don't like it when someone gets off on a "technicality". People often wish the law employed more common sense when determine verdicts."
It's even worse than this. How about bitching about how the copyright laws needing to be repealed, yet supporting GNU violation lawsuits, which rely on exactly the same laws.
"me and the rest of the more level-headed and more lucid and clearly much larger majority in this country will drag the fringe minority of howling morons on the right into the 21st century, and up to the obvious and uncontroversial (unless you are a moron) standards enjoyed in the rest of the industrialized world"
Right. Because you know what you are talking about and anyone that has an opinion other than your own is a moron. This is the main reason why I hate the democratic party. Elitism.
If you are talking about standards, the US has the best quality of health care in the world. The problem is that not as many people have access to it.
The reason the costs are so high is because the actual fees charged are hidden from the patient (the insurance company absorbs it). If we got rid of the insurance companies (or had insurance for major surgeries only) and allowed a direct relationship between the patient and hospital, we would see a drastic decrease on overall costs. Mainly because the hospitals wouldn't be able to do things like charge $150 for Aspirin.
"and this healthcare reform is clearly more fiscally sound than the status quo that existed before this legislation was signed on tuesday. do you honestly believe otherwise?"
Pretty much every large-scale government run program is either bankrupt, inefficient, lacks quality, or a mix of all three. Just looking at the past, It's pretty easy (for an intelligent person at least) to see that a government run health care program will not work in the long run. I don't even think the US has anything that can compare to a program like this.
If the president is so convinced that everyone wants this, why don't we allow people to opt out? If I want to have private care, I now have to pay for both.
"Crime is indeed a fact of life, but I really don't think poverty is the only motivating factor. Chances are most people who steal bikes in major cities do it for drugs, which I suppose might be related to poverty, but I wouldn't really call that the cause. Greed and laziness is more of an issue I think, laziness also being a cause of much poverty."
I agree with this.
If someone is so poor they can't afford to eat, they could try to find a job instead of stealing your bike. Even Fast food places will hire people with no skills. The money isn't great, but you would still be able to buy food.
I'm really sick of people excusing criminals because they are a product of a bad environment. We do have something called free will.
It would have made more sense to do it from Taiwan.
"Why is it illegal to look at child porn and not Jeffery Dahmer's disgusting crime scene photos?"
Because more often than not, the people interested in CP also enjoy having sex or are attracted to kids.
"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"
Because children are abused during the making of child pornography. You really don't understand this?
"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks."
I bet it still happens. Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market. You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).
"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography."
If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem. These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.
"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents."
We already do. Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents. It's also not always the parent. Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).
"Zero control over my purchases? Zero re-sale value when I'm tired of a game? Zero incentive for publishers to discount their titles? Zero bandwidth & gaming ability remaining once I hit my cap? Zero ability to take my games with me once the company goes belly-up (and boy, will it ever...)? All for the low, low price of $15/mo? Sign me up!"
It's the same with Netflix. Unless you are illegally ripping the DVDs. You aren't buying games, you are renting them.
"And it's not like the advertisers are losing money on it - you'd never buy anything from an ad."
This is the same excuse I hear about software piracy. The problem isn't with people like you. The problem is that it's being installed on people's computers that would click on the ads, but never see them in the first place. As this happens more and more, more people will expect and ad-less Internet, which will make it very difficult for people to make money (or even pay for the hosting to run these sites).
"I would never even click on an ad. They're not losing any business by me blocking ads, and anyway I'm not obligated to render every piece of data that comes in on the wire exactly as they want me to render it."
This is fine for you. But, what if Comcast decided to block Youtube because they wanted you to go to their video site. Hell, what if they redirected it through DNS? According to your logic, they should be able to do render it however they want.
"There are ads on /.? I did not know that. I block all ads all the time."
You are part of the problem.
"Advertisers already own all the private spaces. That's fine that is *their* space. They also own most of the public spaces. That's not so fine. They DO NOT OWN my computer screen. That space is mine to do with whatever I want."
Yeah, but you don't own the servers you are connecting to. Content providers do.
"If they don't want to serve up content to people that block ads, then I'll just go somewhere else. End of story."
Good luck with that. Eventually, you will be left with shit content, because all of the good content creators will have left.
You sound like a child that doesn't know how the world works. Even Slashdot needs to be able to pay their bills. Hosting a website that gets millions of visitors/month costs money.
There was an article I read recently about the current youth feeling entitled to everything. Many of the posts here (including yours) are proving this article right.
"How about we geeks make a deal with Ars? We will agree to whitelist them on our Adblock plugins and in return they will agree to run TEXT ONLY ads clearly marked as such, ala Google sponsored links, that are relevant to the content actually being viewed. How about that Ars? Sounds reasonable doesn't it? No more flash and no more bullshit pop culture nonsense ads. Sounds fair to me."
That sounds like you are blackmailing them. Why would they ever agree to this?
Have you ever installed adblock plus for Firefox? Google ads are disabled by default.
The problem isn't that individual sites are blocked. It's that entire sites get their ads blocked, before some users ever have a chance to see them.
"On the subject of propaganda, does an American view the Super Bowl as basically a couple of hours of propaganda? The "this great nation of ours" message is spread a bit thick. Is it propaganda to have the color red in a communist country but patriotism to have the US flag on everything in the US?"
Not really. Propaganda is when the North Korea government tell its people that they need to prepare for war because the US is after them.
Even having the color red isn't propaganda. How does the superbowl have anything to do with propaganda? commerialism..maybe..but propaganda is a bit of a stretch. But, I think you knew this already. It sounds like you want a reason to hate the US.
"Exactly, large groups of people, who have no other options and no real security, do not change."
No, they do change because if they don't, they will be stuck with no options or security forever. Most people that I know that are in this position do everything in their power to better themselves.
"Large groups of people who are secure and have options do change."
If you are comfortable and secure, what's the purpose of changing? Changing requires lots of effort, which many times also needs a catalyst.
"Really now. Because modern research and experiment shows that people do not continue to rely on safety nets."
I'm not sure where you saw this "modern research", but most people take the path of least resistance.
"People are motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity, not self interest."
If this were true, we wouldn't need locks on our doors, or even a police force.
"Look up games theory and games like the Dictator Game. People make choices, even when large sums of real money are on the line, that are not in their own self interest, but motivated by fairness."
What works well in theory many times does not work well in practice.
"They do it because people below the age of 50 just don't respond to the scary FUD about "socialism" that the Right relied upon during the second half of the 20th century."
The reason they don't respond is:
1) They don't have very much experience
2) They have never experienced living in a country that is socialist
3) Many don't have jobs and/or are living with their parents and don't think about the fact that a large percentage of their paycheck is going to the government
"Anybody who's done a little traveling or read a few books knows that "socialism" is quite successful in industrialized, western nations."
Reading about socialism and vacationing in a socialist country is much different than living in one. I don't consider a 60% income tax a success. It is a sacrifice of freedom for comfort, which is the direct result of socialism.
"The people who try to spread the FUD are still depending upon ignorance to try to spread their lies."
Everyone that doesn't agree with you is "ignorant". That's why they don't have the same opinion..right?
"Yes, because there's obviously only one way of applying socialism, and there's obviously no such thing as a mixed economy."
We already have a mixed economy here in the US. There are tons of social program already in place.
"The irony of the matter is that those red states where the Tea Parties mass are actually heavily subsidized [ohio-state.edu] by the blue states. Farm subsidies are just one example; military spending, another."
Well, the people that pay the most subsidies (IE: the rich) use them the least. Why don't we ever discuss this fact?
"It's funny how people who are trying to demonize socialism only see North Korea and seem to ignore all the European countries who have used socialist policies to such excellent result, including Germany, which is doing much better economically than the US atm."
I think we have a different definition of success. In Denmark, a highly socialized country, around 60% of your income goes towards taxes. In addition to this, everything is more expensive because of the VAT tax (all countries in the EU have this tax), so you have less money to spend overall.
Being able to make money is freedom to me because if you have enough money, you can go anywhere you want.
Some social programs are necessary, but too many breeds laziness and a lifetime reliance on the government.
"Score one for Pavlov.
If you enjoy being treated like worthless meat whose sole purpose is to be exploited by others, good luck with that (and don't forget to pay the cover charge)... ...but that doesn't oblige the rest of us to lick the hands that feed, like dogs." ..and some people find a job somewhere else, rather than putting a stranglehold on the people that are employing us. You aren't entitled to a job or a specific wage. Just like companies aren't entitled to the work that you perform (or to have customers buy their products).
I would never join a union, because I don't want to be limited by the abilities of every other union member that works in my department. Unions seem to benefit people that are lazy/don't have the skills to get paid more than a decent wage.
They were once good, but are now a tool of the left to fuck over corporations and support specific political candidates (During Obama's campaign, I got at least 10 different unions calling me and telling me to vote for him). Hell, Obama gave the auto-industry over to the unions and had specific exceptions for them in the most recent health care bill.
If anyone is exploited, it's the union members. They become reliant on the Union and vote based on the fact that they don't want their fat benefits taken away. It's very similar to how the right uses churches and religion to sway the vote.
"Considering that DRM never works yet always pisses off some consumers, wouldn't the sweet spot then be no DRM?"
During the time of Napster, there was no DRM. Did this solve the piracy issue? You can get music now for 99 cents, which was the major gripe of many people (albums were too expensive). Did piracy decrease?
The new anti-pirate system is just a natural progression of technology. Companies now realize that selling software directly doesn't work anymore.
They are doing what everyone has been screaming about for the last 5 years. They found another business model that will work: software as a service. There isn't much you can do about it except compete and actually create something better.
If you want to blame someone, you can blame the pirates and the blatant disregard for intellectual property and copyrights.
I could get behind a group that actively tried to compete with the recording industry by allowing artists to make a fair amount of money on their albums. This would truly be a revolution in the industry.
The problem is that this is very difficult and I don't really think the majority of people sharing content really want to help out the content creators. They just want free shit, which is just sad.
"They don't, but then people who license their work under the GNU aren't usually suing grandmothers who don't own computers for license violation."
It's because grandmothers aren't the ones violating the GNU license. The people being sued for GNU violations are companies (large and small) and it's just as wrong.
I know you were trying to make a point, but if a grandmother is being sued, it's probably because of a relative that is sharing copyrighted material.
"They also aren't lobbying the government for special protection to erode consumer rights and fair use provisions."
If they had the money, they would. Many people in the community would like it if all forms of copyright were abolished (Stallman even said himself that this is the eventual goal of the FSF), which in my eyes, is lobbying against my rights as a copyright holder. I'm glad Stallman is a smelly, dirty, kook. Most people with any kind of power in the US don't take him seriously.
"Their lawsuits are generally regarding straight-up copyright infringement by other publishers who are profiting from someone else's copyrighted work."
That sure doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Freedom is the BSD license. Which allows you to do anything you would like with the source code.
Governments and people in countries like Brazil shouldn't be considered pirates for using GNU software. However, they most likely are using GNU software because they don't want or have the money to spend on proprietary software. Many of these countries also do not enforce our copyright laws and piracy is rampant (china for example). So why would a company even consider trying to sell anything to them if they know it's just going to get pirated with no recourse?
I would respect the community a little more if the majority of the people in it weren't so zealous about destroying the commercial software industry.
"They're trying to convince us all that they are, as industries, entitled to exist, and entitled to a governmental guarantee of profitability. They're trying to convince us that copyright was always considered an inalienable human right, and that authors of creative works have always been entitled to absolute control of their creations in perpetuity. Further, they're trying to convince us that they, the publishers, are the true authors of these works. The guy who wrote the song or the novel, the band who performed the song, the developer who actually wrote the code-- these people are just employees. They're assistants in the process, but the company who funded the work is the true author, and the only one entitled to protection."
I have heard this argument since '99 (when Napster first came out) and I'm really getting tired of it. Right now, artists, developers, and musicians can sell their work online with no company behind them, and they do.
The problem is that piracy still hasn't slowed down. In fact, it's gotten even worse. Why is that? Maybe because your argument is a thinly veiled attempt to justify your own selfishness. If something is not worth the money, don't pirate it or use it. It will send a message to the original creator that they need to try something new. When it is pirated, people are getting use out of it, but they just don't want to pay for it.
I might be able to get behind the GNU/free software movement if they weren't only there to push their own pseudo-political movement. The free software foundation has many lawyers that go after companies in court every day for violating the GNU license. Why do GNU license holders have any more rights than the people trying to protect their IP?
"What are you, a moron? No one even suggested that.
However, there is a large group of people who buy the game and then download a no-cd crack because they aren't putting up with that crap."
What are you, a moron?
Show me proof.
"If you bothered to read, he *buys* the games and then plays the pirated version because it doesn't have the limitation. It is pig arses like YOU that clog up slashdot with useless fucking trolls after not even reading the post you are replying to. Many of us *buy* the game but play a pirated version for convenience. The main bitch isn't paying $50, it is paying $50 for something you can't play the way you want to, or at all."
"Troll" is a convenient word used for people you don't agree with. It's a way to instantly silence your opposition.
I seriously doubt that the majority of people pirating games go out and buy it as an act of good will.
You act as if game developers need to follow exactly what you say or you are just going to pirate it anyway. It just doesn't work this way.
This sounds very similar to the arguments about music piracy made when Napster first came out. I remember things such as: "$20 is just too expensive for a CD". Now that there are many more options and you can get songs for 99 cents, there is more piracy than ever. Even look at apple store apps. They are 99 cents, and the good ones are still heavily pirated.
Most people just don't want to spend their hard-earned money on something they know they can get for free. DRM and other copy protection schemes are just a natural reaction to this. Piracy was around long before DRM.
The only companies that can stay profitable are the ones that can prevent piracy somehow (either a copy-protection scheme or running a service).
"2) they don't want to actually make someone feel bad for messing up (WTF?!?!?)"
I'm not surprised. Even when I was in elementary school (I'm 28 now), we would have baseball games where nobody would win. The game would be played all the way up until the last inning and the teacher would just call it a tie. How does this teach us anything about life? In life, there are clear winners and losers, and kids need to know how to be both.
It's the liberalization of our education system.
"Children are indoctrinated into this idea that one puff fries your brain forever. Then they meet someone, and this someone shows them that they can smoke it and the next day they're back to normal."
One puff may not fry your brain, but all the people I knew in high school that smoked pot were lazy and pretty much only cared about smoking more pot. Could they have been this way before the pot? Some were, most were not.
Some people also have an addictive personality, which makes them more prone to things like pot (and other addictive drugs). Since we don't really know if someone will get addicted or not, why take the chance?
"Intelligent people who use recreational drugs do not just "feel like trying something else." Only idiots who are already prone to ruining their life would blithely consider the consumption of unknown substances without rigorous personal research."
Ha. I seriously doubt there are that many people doing "personal research" before putting drugs in their system.
"Actually, I think he said that legalizing it won't cause new problems in the form of a wave of new addicts for whom the only thing that was holding them back was criminalization. I don't see anything in his comment about legalization solving problems."
how do you know?
I think a lot of people might be more willing to try it if they see it sold at the local 7-11, which will result in more addicts. I wonder what the number of alcoholics in the US compares to the number of drug addicts?