In my opinion, the solution is not opening up space to private profiteering. It is a coordinated effort by a multi-national space cooperation. Let different countries vie for funding on their design of launch vehicle, space suit and engines. That's fine. But IMHO we need to get real, an understand that space exploration and development benefits everyone, and so everyone should participate in making it happen.
This is true. However, I would add that the name Republic of China is the name of the KMT government, and was brought from the mainland when they withdrew to Taiwan. At least half of the population of Taiwan has lived there for generations, arriving long before there ever was a Republic of China. In Chinese, aside from official statements, most Taiwanese people refer to their country simply as 'Taiwan'. (Yes, there is more to it that this.)
However, Taiwan is never referred to as simply "China".
While they may share a language, a cultural history and a long term relationship, Taiwan and China differ in society, politics, economy, technology, and general development. Aside from silly politics, they aren't remotely the same country.
Why is it that people who have such a problem with security cameras in public, seem to extrapolate to unrelated things?
Serious questions. Considering you feel no expectation of privacy in public, would you...
1. accept mandatory personal ID & tracking for every site you visit on the internet (which is arguably "public space")?
No. The internet isn't public. It is the internet, wherein the descriptor 'public' only applies to posts you actually make, or material you provide which anyone has access to. Besides, the fact that it would easily circumvented kind of suggests it isn't the kind of public space we are talking about. You are suggesting something like mandatory wire tapping of phone lines. That kind of thing certainly isn't ok, is it?
2. accept mandatory wearing of armbands in public, identifying your religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and income?
What does this have to do with CCTV cameras? Even if the government was able to obtain this information (which, in almost every case, can be obtained by other means such as census data, public registries, and so on). But let me put this to you: if you sit down in a public park and start to pray, do you think you have an expectation that no one is allowed to know your religion? Or if you drive around in an expensive sports car, do you thin you have the right for people not to know how much you make?
3. answer questions about your public activities (clubs you go to, items you buy, web sites you visit) when you apply for a job?
Again, what does applying for a job have to do with the government possibly storing data about persons based on what they do in public? If you are going to argue that 'evil corporations are going to obtain this information', isn't that a problem with your government and not with the CCTV cameras? Also, doesn't google et al already have most of this information already, based on your searching habits?
4. be ok with all your public activity being brought up in court, used as "character evidence" when, say, applying for adoption, divorce or fighting for custody of your child?
Yes. I'm fine with this. Why? I did something in public. I shouldn't expect people didn't see me. Say I'm going through a divorce. My wife brings in a video of me physically abusing her in a car park. I certainly think that evidence should be used against me. Why would you expect anything else?
Or do you now understand that the expectation of privacy in public is, in fact, a cornerstone of democracy and law?
No. I think the ability to select your government by popular vote is the cornerstone of democracy, and said government and other officials following and adhering to the law, as written, is the cornerstone of law. Public places never have been, and never will be, private in any meaning of the word. Where is private? Your own head. Your own house. Etc.
Of course I'm downplaying it you dolt. But I'd love to hear your (oh great AC one) concerns on what, specifically, the government might infer, and how it will affect your life. Remember, this is only from the cameras, and only from things you do in a public setting. More to the point, try to only mention things which cannot already be obtained quite easily (say, if you are a person of interest) using more traditional methods, such as following you, photographing you as you go about the city, or more invasive methods such as wire taps, bugs, following your cellphone usage, credit card usage, etc.
See, this is pretty much where I disagree with you.
Maybe it simply comes down to me not being American. I don't naturally distrust my government, because they are, for the most part, ineffective at doing much of anything. If I lived in a totalitarian state, then I might agree with you. But I would hazard to suggest that none of the people reading this post live in such a state.
Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.
You're trying to make a mockery of it but combining who you are from e.g. cell phone records and how you looked and dressed at the time for example. If you want the tinfoil hat version it's also the visual fallback system for when you aren't carrying your radio buoy aka cell phone, without the effort of having an undercover officer following you. If you leave the house with a blue cardigan, you'll be auto-flagged as a suspect because someone across town was raped by a person wearing a blue cardigan.
And? If someone was raped by someone in a blue cardigan, I think it's fair enough that "the system" (are we talking Skynet here? Because I'm pretty sure no actual CCTV system is nearly this sophisticated) watches me to see if I am, in fact, that rapist. Won't this help catch the rapist sooner?
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. (...)
You should take a clue from the military, they are quite concerned that if you can systematically collect and process unclassified data you might infer information of a sensitive nature. Who and how many people work at a military facility may be secret, but if you count the comings and goings and track them home, you've inferred something the government doesn't want you to know. Likewise if you systematically collect enough public information, you can infer private information.
Military is built on paranoia. What, exactly, about knowing where I work, what I like to eat for dinner on the way home, and which park I take my kids to on the weekend, should I worry about? It's exactly as you say: If I'm a person of interest (say suspected of a crime), then the government can already find out all of this information by other means. Because, as I keep saying, all of this is happening out in the public. There is no privacy in public. Cameras do not suddenly change this.
Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I?
I think you've missed the primary reason totalitarian regimes spy on their citizens, it's not really about finding red flags and dealing with them it's about intimidating people from doing anything that might cause a red flag or associating with people that might cause a red flag. Let's go back to McCarthyism and even though you've done nothing wrong, would you really like that database to fill up with lots of light associations to events or groups that are communist-friendly or to people who are communist-friendly? The point is guilt by association and if they want you to be guilty, chances are that somewhere in that mass of data there's something we can nail you for. There will always be idealists and dissidents, the point is to make the silent majority disassociate themselves from them.
I couldn't care less if my government thinks I'm a communist or not. I think I'm beginning to see the problem you, and a lot of others here on slashdot, have. I'm going to make the assumption that you are American. I've noticed Americans tend to naturally distrust their government, think they are only one step away from being like North Korea, and that they are evil and waiting to take you away and send you to the Gulag.
I'm not American. I don't distrust my government. I, like most I know, think my government would have a hard time spying their way out of a wet paper bag. They are too busy getting their cocks sucked, and fighting amongst themselves, to do very much in parliament, let alone become the next Nazi Government.
And what if a company has access to the recordings? What could they do with them that you don't like? Perhaps predict your morning route to work, and somehow place advertising in the way? Call you when you get home from work offering cheaper beer? What, exactly, is it you are afraid will happen?
I understand your sentiment, however your specific example is one of police corruption and/or abuse of power, not a problem with the cameras. In fact, the police telling you that no cameras recorded the shooting leads to the same result as if there were no cameras there in the first place. However, if the police had less power and/or were unable to remove evidence of their conduct in the way they have, the cameras would certainly be a good thing, wouldn't they?
Further, I put it to you that the cameras provide no more information than is available by many other means about the plans and movements of people. Phones can be tapped, police can stake out and bug your house, your garbage can be gone through, you can be photographed or followed anywhere you go outside of your own home, and if you are doing something the government doesn't like (say, for example, protesting) then they may use any and all of these methods to stop you. This seems more of a problem of the government, and not the cameras, doesn't it?
I'll say again: my main reason I don't care about all of these cameras is that they are all in public places I have no expectation of privacy already.
Put it this way: When I say there is plenty of petty theft, I mean there is plenty of petty theft that is caught. Sure, maybe only 1% of all the crime committed is actually solved by the cameras, but that is still 1% more than would be if there were no cameras.
I agree with you that cameras do not prevent crime, or at least, there doesn't seem to be any reliable statistics to support that it does. I can tell you, though, that it certain does help solve crimes, and catch criminals. That's better than nothing, isn't it? Especially when the only downside is maybe your government decides to know where you buy your coffee.
I know people aren't going to see this, and it'll never be modded up, but whatever.
I live in a country that has a high number of CCTV cameras (actually, mostly traffic cameras and webcams and security cameras that the police are allowed to access). I feel they are nothing but good.
Every day the news is full of crimes being shown on camera, and the criminals apprehended. While there isn't a lot of serious violent crime, there is plenty of petty theft and the like here, and the cameras help a lot in catching the perpetrators.
Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I? The cameras are only in public places, somewhere anyone could film me without my knowledge anyway. I live in a fairly large city, why would anyone be interested in me specifically unless I commit a crime? Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. The government isn't installing cameras in your shower. They aren't bugging your house. They are putting up cameras to record crimes and help catch criminals. All in public areas where you don't have any privacy anyway.
Not a single mention of of the web browser Opera, which has a fantastic rss reader built in (and it does email, too!). Of course, it doesn't sync between computers, but that's nothing a little Spideroak (or similar) won't fix.
People must be F'in cheap if they aren't willing to spend 99 cents. If I see a Kindle book for 99 cents I just grab it; I'm not wasting time trying to find a free pirate version. (shrug). So much for the "We would buy your product if it were cheap enough" excuse. It's been officially debunked.
I can't buy apps in my country. Only free ones are available here. Not everyone pirates because they are too cheap.
I love apps that have in-app purchases to enable the full app. These actually work here.
Look, it's very simple. IIRC the #1 reason why people go bankrupt in the US is because of healthcare. This doesn't happen in other countries, and their level of healthcare not only doesn't suffer, but is oftentimes better.
What's not to like?
This is because they are two different languages. Chinese, as a writing system, is understandable to speakers of many Chinese languages, for example Mandarin, or Cantonese, when these spoken languages are mutually unintelligible. It is hard to provide an analogy using western languages, but you could think of it like this: written Chinese is like the Roman Script; it is a way of writing languages, but pronunciation is totally different between different languages. This isn't a great analogy though, because with an alphabet different languages spell words differently, while Chinese 'spell' the words the same.
When I worked in China, I just used Tor. Quick, easy, and worked perfectly. Even works for torrents, since all your client needs to do is connect to the tracker over http, and then you don't need a proxy after that point.
What most people don't realize is what life is like for factory workers in China. I have worked in China, and I can tell you that 12 hours shifts is not uncommon. You could make 15 hour shifts and people there would still line up to get a job, because the alternative is starvation. It's easy to criticize from a distance, but there is more to this than just a single company. The whole society and economy leads to this situation. Furthermore, what we aren't hearing here in the west is that after the first suicide, Foxconn employed a large number of psychiatric workers to come and talk to employees. The simple fact is, most of these suicides will be because most people in China are worth more dead than they are alive. The first employee committed suicide after he was demoted for losing an iphone. Note, not fired, just demoted. After he took the dive, Foxconn payed a large sum, including IIRC a monthly fee, to the family of the worker. This money was considerably more than the worker would make. Shortly after, more suicides happened, and Foxconn payed more money to those families. This is how it is; the employees make more money for their families by dying than by staying and working, and this situation is not unique to this company. One of the women who committed suicide did so because of a personal relationship (I'm not sure of the exact nature, I didn't catch that part on the news here), and Foxconn still payed money to the family. AFAIK, Foxconn has recently made a new policy, wherein if an employee commits suicide without asking one of the companies employees for help, no compensation will be payed to the family.
It is a terrible situation, but blame cannot be heaped solely at the feet of this one company. This is just reality for factory workers in China. It is similar to child labor. All will agree that it is a terrible thing, but how much blame really lies at the companies who employ children? Sure, it's easy to blame them, but if they didn't employ those children, another company would. Why? Because without employment, many children are unable to feed themselves, and far too often their whole families as well. In this respect, China is no different from, say, India. Many parts of China, mostly the large cities, are becoming quite modern, but most of the country is still in the stone ages.
You have a lot of opinions, and they are just that: opinion. I would like to see some numbers to support your claim that "if copyright violation was legal, a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months".
As I see it, we have 3 groups involved in copyright violation. Assuming we are talking about a movie, these would be:
1) Die hard fans who insist on going to the movie theater and owning an official copy of the DVD once it comes out.
2) Normal people. Some will see the movie, some won't have time, some will buy the DVD, some won't have the money.
3) Die hard pirates. These will never pay for the movie, out of principle.
Of these, group 1 will never pirate the movie, so we can ignore them. Group 3 will never pay for the movie, so there are no lost sales, so we can ignore them too. Out of the largest group, group 2, a significant proportion may pirate movie. But why? They may not have money, or consider the price of the movie or DVD excessive. This sub-group, then, are not the target market, so there are no lost sales. Some may have no time, and thus we can also exclude this sub-group, because they would never have time, regardless of the legality of copyright violation, and thus no lost sales. So what is the situation we find ourselves in? The target market of movies and DVDs - those with the funds and the time to spend - will likely purchase the entertainment. Those outside of the target group - those who cannot afford it - may pirate the work so that they can also enjoy it, but even if piracy was impossible, they would simply not purchase the work, no lost sales, no harm done.
What can the movie (and by extension, the entire entertainment industry) do about this? In my humble, non-professional, armchair-critical opinion, they should stop worrying about those who are not their customers (people outside the target market, just as the fashion industry is doing) and/or change their business model to make them their customers once again. Raising prices will do nothing, it will only make the second group larger than before. Legally persecuting pirates will not help, as it still will not make those unable/unwilling to purchase their material change their minds nor their situation. What they can do, however, is provide services that directly compete with piracy. If Prada wanted to combat copies of their items, they could lower their prices so that purchasing an official copy becomes worth the price to a larger group of people. Similarly, if the entertainment industry wants people to stop pirating their works, provide a viable alternative, or stop complaining.
You talk about Steam-like systems. Then lets look at Steam itself. It is incredibly successful, and offers many low-cost games, specials and weekend demos to entice more customers to pay. Not only that, but it provides a common, easy to use, system for purchasing, and downloading new games. It is a viable alternative to piracy. Yes, piracy still happens, and it always will. Even if you entice all of group 2 to become your paying customers, there will always be group 3 who refuse to pay, not matter how little you charge. Similarly, there will always be people who will only buy knock-off fashion items, and will never buy and authentic piece. There will always be people who obtain all their music from recording songs from the radio, or copying CDs from their friends. There will always be people who wait until movies come out of TV, or borrow their friend's DVDs and copy them. These people will never go away, and it's pointless to try and make them. Instead, the entertainment industry, like the fashion industry, should innovate, and make a valuable, viable, alternative to entice as many people from group 2 to pay for their products.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion, the solution is not opening up space to private profiteering. It is a coordinated effort by a multi-national space cooperation. Let different countries vie for funding on their design of launch vehicle, space suit and engines. That's fine. But IMHO we need to get real, an understand that space exploration and development benefits everyone, and so everyone should participate in making it happen.
This is true. However, I would add that the name Republic of China is the name of the KMT government, and was brought from the mainland when they withdrew to Taiwan. At least half of the population of Taiwan has lived there for generations, arriving long before there ever was a Republic of China. In Chinese, aside from official statements, most Taiwanese people refer to their country simply as 'Taiwan'. (Yes, there is more to it that this.)
However, Taiwan is never referred to as simply "China".
While they may share a language, a cultural history and a long term relationship, Taiwan and China differ in society, politics, economy, technology, and general development. Aside from silly politics, they aren't remotely the same country.
Why is it that people who have such a problem with security cameras in public, seem to extrapolate to unrelated things?
Serious questions. Considering you feel no expectation of privacy in public, would you...
1. accept mandatory personal ID & tracking for every site you visit on the internet (which is arguably "public space")?
No. The internet isn't public. It is the internet, wherein the descriptor 'public' only applies to posts you actually make, or material you provide which anyone has access to. Besides, the fact that it would easily circumvented kind of suggests it isn't the kind of public space we are talking about. You are suggesting something like mandatory wire tapping of phone lines. That kind of thing certainly isn't ok, is it?
2. accept mandatory wearing of armbands in public, identifying your religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and income?
What does this have to do with CCTV cameras? Even if the government was able to obtain this information (which, in almost every case, can be obtained by other means such as census data, public registries, and so on). But let me put this to you: if you sit down in a public park and start to pray, do you think you have an expectation that no one is allowed to know your religion? Or if you drive around in an expensive sports car, do you thin you have the right for people not to know how much you make?
3. answer questions about your public activities (clubs you go to, items you buy, web sites you visit) when you apply for a job?
Again, what does applying for a job have to do with the government possibly storing data about persons based on what they do in public? If you are going to argue that 'evil corporations are going to obtain this information', isn't that a problem with your government and not with the CCTV cameras? Also, doesn't google et al already have most of this information already, based on your searching habits?
4. be ok with all your public activity being brought up in court, used as "character evidence" when, say, applying for adoption, divorce or fighting for custody of your child?
Yes. I'm fine with this. Why? I did something in public. I shouldn't expect people didn't see me. Say I'm going through a divorce. My wife brings in a video of me physically abusing her in a car park. I certainly think that evidence should be used against me. Why would you expect anything else?
Or do you now understand that the expectation of privacy in public is, in fact, a cornerstone of democracy and law?
No. I think the ability to select your government by popular vote is the cornerstone of democracy, and said government and other officials following and adhering to the law, as written, is the cornerstone of law. Public places never have been, and never will be, private in any meaning of the word. Where is private? Your own head. Your own house. Etc.
Of course I'm downplaying it you dolt. But I'd love to hear your (oh great AC one) concerns on what, specifically, the government might infer, and how it will affect your life. Remember, this is only from the cameras, and only from things you do in a public setting. More to the point, try to only mention things which cannot already be obtained quite easily (say, if you are a person of interest) using more traditional methods, such as following you, photographing you as you go about the city, or more invasive methods such as wire taps, bugs, following your cellphone usage, credit card usage, etc.
See, this is pretty much where I disagree with you.
Maybe it simply comes down to me not being American. I don't naturally distrust my government, because they are, for the most part, ineffective at doing much of anything. If I lived in a totalitarian state, then I might agree with you. But I would hazard to suggest that none of the people reading this post live in such a state.
This. Exactly, precisely, this.
Long post, I'll reply to selected parts.
Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.
You're trying to make a mockery of it but combining who you are from e.g. cell phone records and how you looked and dressed at the time for example. If you want the tinfoil hat version it's also the visual fallback system for when you aren't carrying your radio buoy aka cell phone, without the effort of having an undercover officer following you. If you leave the house with a blue cardigan, you'll be auto-flagged as a suspect because someone across town was raped by a person wearing a blue cardigan.
And? If someone was raped by someone in a blue cardigan, I think it's fair enough that "the system" (are we talking Skynet here? Because I'm pretty sure no actual CCTV system is nearly this sophisticated) watches me to see if I am, in fact, that rapist. Won't this help catch the rapist sooner?
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. (...)
You should take a clue from the military, they are quite concerned that if you can systematically collect and process unclassified data you might infer information of a sensitive nature. Who and how many people work at a military facility may be secret, but if you count the comings and goings and track them home, you've inferred something the government doesn't want you to know. Likewise if you systematically collect enough public information, you can infer private information.
Military is built on paranoia. What, exactly, about knowing where I work, what I like to eat for dinner on the way home, and which park I take my kids to on the weekend, should I worry about? It's exactly as you say: If I'm a person of interest (say suspected of a crime), then the government can already find out all of this information by other means. Because, as I keep saying, all of this is happening out in the public. There is no privacy in public. Cameras do not suddenly change this.
Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I?
I think you've missed the primary reason totalitarian regimes spy on their citizens, it's not really about finding red flags and dealing with them it's about intimidating people from doing anything that might cause a red flag or associating with people that might cause a red flag. Let's go back to McCarthyism and even though you've done nothing wrong, would you really like that database to fill up with lots of light associations to events or groups that are communist-friendly or to people who are communist-friendly? The point is guilt by association and if they want you to be guilty, chances are that somewhere in that mass of data there's something we can nail you for. There will always be idealists and dissidents, the point is to make the silent majority disassociate themselves from them.
I couldn't care less if my government thinks I'm a communist or not. I think I'm beginning to see the problem you, and a lot of others here on slashdot, have. I'm going to make the assumption that you are American. I've noticed Americans tend to naturally distrust their government, think they are only one step away from being like North Korea, and that they are evil and waiting to take you away and send you to the Gulag.
I'm not American. I don't distrust my government. I, like most I know, think my government would have a hard time spying their way out of a wet paper bag. They are too busy getting their cocks sucked, and fighting amongst themselves, to do very much in parliament, let alone become the next Nazi Government.
And what if a company has access to the recordings? What could they do with them that you don't like? Perhaps predict your morning route to work, and somehow place advertising in the way? Call you when you get home from work offering cheaper beer? What, exactly, is it you are afraid will happen?
I understand your sentiment, however your specific example is one of police corruption and/or abuse of power, not a problem with the cameras. In fact, the police telling you that no cameras recorded the shooting leads to the same result as if there were no cameras there in the first place. However, if the police had less power and/or were unable to remove evidence of their conduct in the way they have, the cameras would certainly be a good thing, wouldn't they?
Further, I put it to you that the cameras provide no more information than is available by many other means about the plans and movements of people. Phones can be tapped, police can stake out and bug your house, your garbage can be gone through, you can be photographed or followed anywhere you go outside of your own home, and if you are doing something the government doesn't like (say, for example, protesting) then they may use any and all of these methods to stop you. This seems more of a problem of the government, and not the cameras, doesn't it?
I'll say again: my main reason I don't care about all of these cameras is that they are all in public places I have no expectation of privacy already.
Fair point.
Put it this way: When I say there is plenty of petty theft, I mean there is plenty of petty theft that is caught. Sure, maybe only 1% of all the crime committed is actually solved by the cameras, but that is still 1% more than would be if there were no cameras.
I agree with you that cameras do not prevent crime, or at least, there doesn't seem to be any reliable statistics to support that it does. I can tell you, though, that it certain does help solve crimes, and catch criminals. That's better than nothing, isn't it? Especially when the only downside is maybe your government decides to know where you buy your coffee.
I know people aren't going to see this, and it'll never be modded up, but whatever.
I live in a country that has a high number of CCTV cameras (actually, mostly traffic cameras and webcams and security cameras that the police are allowed to access). I feel they are nothing but good.
Every day the news is full of crimes being shown on camera, and the criminals apprehended. While there isn't a lot of serious violent crime, there is plenty of petty theft and the like here, and the cameras help a lot in catching the perpetrators.
Do I worry about being spied on? No, why would I? The cameras are only in public places, somewhere anyone could film me without my knowledge anyway. I live in a fairly large city, why would anyone be interested in me specifically unless I commit a crime? Even if they were, what could they really find out about me by watching some cameras? The places I visit? That I pick my nose and scratch my balls while walking down the street? All of this is obtainable in other ways.
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. The government isn't installing cameras in your shower. They aren't bugging your house. They are putting up cameras to record crimes and help catch criminals. All in public areas where you don't have any privacy anyway.
Not a single mention of of the web browser Opera, which has a fantastic rss reader built in (and it does email, too!). Of course, it doesn't sync between computers, but that's nothing a little Spideroak (or similar) won't fix.
People must be F'in cheap if they aren't willing to spend 99 cents. If I see a Kindle book for 99 cents I just grab it; I'm not wasting time trying to find a free pirate version. (shrug). So much for the "We would buy your product if it were cheap enough" excuse. It's been officially debunked.
I can't buy apps in my country. Only free ones are available here. Not everyone pirates because they are too cheap.
I love apps that have in-app purchases to enable the full app. These actually work here.
Even worse, I've heard Americans call the kiwifruit a "kiwi", and a kiwi a "kiwi bird"!
What could possibly go wrong?
Look, it's very simple. IIRC the #1 reason why people go bankrupt in the US is because of healthcare. This doesn't happen in other countries, and their level of healthcare not only doesn't suffer, but is oftentimes better. What's not to like?
Is it so, if you're made of metal, he can attach himself to you?
Is that big enough to put a portal on?
The formatting of the RSS feed is all screwed up now, as well. At least it is for me in Opera. Everything else seems to work, though.
This is because they are two different languages. Chinese, as a writing system, is understandable to speakers of many Chinese languages, for example Mandarin, or Cantonese, when these spoken languages are mutually unintelligible. It is hard to provide an analogy using western languages, but you could think of it like this: written Chinese is like the Roman Script; it is a way of writing languages, but pronunciation is totally different between different languages. This isn't a great analogy though, because with an alphabet different languages spell words differently, while Chinese 'spell' the words the same.
When I worked in China, I just used Tor. Quick, easy, and worked perfectly. Even works for torrents, since all your client needs to do is connect to the tracker over http, and then you don't need a proxy after that point.
What most people don't realize is what life is like for factory workers in China. I have worked in China, and I can tell you that 12 hours shifts is not uncommon. You could make 15 hour shifts and people there would still line up to get a job, because the alternative is starvation. It's easy to criticize from a distance, but there is more to this than just a single company. The whole society and economy leads to this situation. Furthermore, what we aren't hearing here in the west is that after the first suicide, Foxconn employed a large number of psychiatric workers to come and talk to employees. The simple fact is, most of these suicides will be because most people in China are worth more dead than they are alive.
The first employee committed suicide after he was demoted for losing an iphone. Note, not fired, just demoted. After he took the dive, Foxconn payed a large sum, including IIRC a monthly fee, to the family of the worker. This money was considerably more than the worker would make. Shortly after, more suicides happened, and Foxconn payed more money to those families. This is how it is; the employees make more money for their families by dying than by staying and working, and this situation is not unique to this company. One of the women who committed suicide did so because of a personal relationship (I'm not sure of the exact nature, I didn't catch that part on the news here), and Foxconn still payed money to the family. AFAIK, Foxconn has recently made a new policy, wherein if an employee commits suicide without asking one of the companies employees for help, no compensation will be payed to the family.
It is a terrible situation, but blame cannot be heaped solely at the feet of this one company. This is just reality for factory workers in China. It is similar to child labor. All will agree that it is a terrible thing, but how much blame really lies at the companies who employ children? Sure, it's easy to blame them, but if they didn't employ those children, another company would. Why? Because without employment, many children are unable to feed themselves, and far too often their whole families as well. In this respect, China is no different from, say, India. Many parts of China, mostly the large cities, are becoming quite modern, but most of the country is still in the stone ages.
You have a lot of opinions, and they are just that: opinion. I would like to see some numbers to support your claim that "if copyright violation was legal, a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months". As I see it, we have 3 groups involved in copyright violation. Assuming we are talking about a movie, these would be: 1) Die hard fans who insist on going to the movie theater and owning an official copy of the DVD once it comes out. 2) Normal people. Some will see the movie, some won't have time, some will buy the DVD, some won't have the money. 3) Die hard pirates. These will never pay for the movie, out of principle. Of these, group 1 will never pirate the movie, so we can ignore them. Group 3 will never pay for the movie, so there are no lost sales, so we can ignore them too. Out of the largest group, group 2, a significant proportion may pirate movie. But why? They may not have money, or consider the price of the movie or DVD excessive. This sub-group, then, are not the target market, so there are no lost sales. Some may have no time, and thus we can also exclude this sub-group, because they would never have time, regardless of the legality of copyright violation, and thus no lost sales. So what is the situation we find ourselves in? The target market of movies and DVDs - those with the funds and the time to spend - will likely purchase the entertainment. Those outside of the target group - those who cannot afford it - may pirate the work so that they can also enjoy it, but even if piracy was impossible, they would simply not purchase the work, no lost sales, no harm done. What can the movie (and by extension, the entire entertainment industry) do about this? In my humble, non-professional, armchair-critical opinion, they should stop worrying about those who are not their customers (people outside the target market, just as the fashion industry is doing) and/or change their business model to make them their customers once again. Raising prices will do nothing, it will only make the second group larger than before. Legally persecuting pirates will not help, as it still will not make those unable/unwilling to purchase their material change their minds nor their situation. What they can do, however, is provide services that directly compete with piracy. If Prada wanted to combat copies of their items, they could lower their prices so that purchasing an official copy becomes worth the price to a larger group of people. Similarly, if the entertainment industry wants people to stop pirating their works, provide a viable alternative, or stop complaining. You talk about Steam-like systems. Then lets look at Steam itself. It is incredibly successful, and offers many low-cost games, specials and weekend demos to entice more customers to pay. Not only that, but it provides a common, easy to use, system for purchasing, and downloading new games. It is a viable alternative to piracy. Yes, piracy still happens, and it always will. Even if you entice all of group 2 to become your paying customers, there will always be group 3 who refuse to pay, not matter how little you charge. Similarly, there will always be people who will only buy knock-off fashion items, and will never buy and authentic piece. There will always be people who obtain all their music from recording songs from the radio, or copying CDs from their friends. There will always be people who wait until movies come out of TV, or borrow their friend's DVDs and copy them. These people will never go away, and it's pointless to try and make them. Instead, the entertainment industry, like the fashion industry, should innovate, and make a valuable, viable, alternative to entice as many people from group 2 to pay for their products.
You're right, the entire fashion industry is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the copy-culture stealing their intellectual property!