saying "the time is the issue to me" does not make time the issue. Like I stated. If the issue were merely time, then there would be one hourly wage that we had all agreed upon for a person's time. Maybe with a multiplier for how much energy the expel. But That's not how pay works. The more expertise and specialized knowledge and skill a task requires, the more the task is typically considered "worth". That's why someone ho spends 8 hours lifting heavy boxes and expelling huge amounts of energy makes 12 dollars an hour and someone who sits around typing up code expending relatively little energy makes much more.
Also: what are your thoughts on sneaking into a concert? Do you consider that OK since the band is going to perform anyways? They're going to expel just as much energy is 999 people buy tickets and 1 sneaks in as if 1 buys a ticket and 999 sneak in. So is THAT justified to you?
But the time isn't really the issue. You aren't paying the man X to come over and stand around near your pipes for a few hours. What you're actually paying for is his service. You are trading the benefit of his years of training and experience for X.
The fact that he has to come over and waste time in order to provide you with the benefit of his skills merely INCREASES the price. That's why the more highly trained someone is, the more they charge per hour. You aren't paying for time. You're paying for the benefit of the investment of time and money that went into developing that skill.
That is why copyright law exists. So that results of skill, the fruits of which can be easily benefited from without compensating the creator, don't lead to violation of the same deal. The artist has just as much right to only allow people who have met his conditions and his X receive the fruits of his years of accumulated talent involving the cost (time and or money) of music training, the opportunity cost of going into a different profession, the cost of equipment, promotion etc.
Potential revenue is not revenue. I am not disputing this point. What I'm disputing is the claim that you should be allowed to receive the result of the artists work without paying the amount they agree to. You don't have to buy the album. That's totally fine. Their failure to convince you to is their loss of revenue. But if you download the album and not pay for it, you have broken a deal you knew existed, you have effectively, as soon as you finish downloading that album, turned "potential income" into "stolen goods" because you have received your end of the deal without giving the rightful owner their end and you are legally liable for that end. Like I said, if you don't feel the deal is worth it, you can just NOT get the album. But you can't have it both ways. You can't benefit from the service and not pay the amount asked for in exchange for that benefit.
I'm going to assume you mean "you wasted his time".
File sharing DOES directly "waste the time", as you put it, of the artist. Like the plumbing example. The plumber has the following deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, working pipes, in exchange for X dollars." if you get the fruits of this service, and do not give him X dollars, you are depriving him of his due income.
Musicians have the same deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, a collection of recorded musical tracks, in exchange for X dollars." If you get this collection but do not give the musician X dollars. You are depriving him of due income. If you feel X is too much, or do not like the way X will be divided or who has the right to X then you have the legal option to NOT ENTER IN THE DEAL. But if you acquire for yourself a copy of the fruits of their labour and do not pay them X, you are depriving them of due payment.
No, seriously, deprivation doesn't require ownership. If someone is sleep deprived they do not have sleep they already have removed. They are denied further sleep.
If a plumber comes over and fixes your pipes, and you then refuse to pay him, you are depriving him of his wages. He at no point HAD your money, but you are still taking his services without compensating him for them.
Instead of paying the 12 pounds, can I just copy whatever I get for joining off my friend who did? I feel it's more in the spirit of what you represent.
No. Actually to be deprived of something you need to not be given it when you otherwise would. If you deprive your child of food you aren't taking away food he already has. You're not giving him food he should have.
I recently switched to Chrome because it DOESN'T creep its way up to the 2 gig memory usage mark after awhile like Firefox has recently been doing on my machine. It had nothing to do with how shiny Chrome is.
If you can argue a preacher "sells" their beliefs and then require proof of their faith you would shut down all religions ever. That's not how it works.
I don't know how people still support him after that. It was a flagrant misuse of the prorogation system to bypass a legitimate political procedure designed specifically for that situation. If I were the GG I'd have told him to go eat a dick on the queen's behalf and take his power loss like a man.
It's too long to write out in full but basically you need to publicly call for or advocate violence against a minority group with intent of people listening to you and going through with it.
I'm sorry, where was the USA mentioned in this? When the Canadian government tried to have the Canadian ISPs give the Canadian law enforcement agency more information?
I suppose my problem with your conclusion is that if I hear someone break into my house, I can easily lock the door to my room and call the police. And since I assume you have a gun, you can also point it directly at the door after that. Once this has been accomplished, I can be pretty sure that the only way I will be in any danger from the intruder is if he actively attempts to violently break down my door (in which case nobody is going to argue against self defense when there's a bedroom door off its hinges) or if I make the conscious choice to go and track down the intruder.
If I do the second, with a weapon, I am willfully and intentionally putting myself in potential danger for the sake of forcing a confrontation that I could otherwise have probably avoided. If your chief concern is safety then going out to locate the potentially violent party and antagonize him with a weapon is not the appropriate course of action. Tracking the person down only makes sense if you're trying to stop him from doing what he's doing regardless of his motive.
Since legal theory (mens rea specifically) doesn't allow illegal actions that can't be described as being done "willfully, knowingly or purposefully" or CAN be described as having been done "recklessly or negligently" the action tracking the person down despite having safer options that any mentally capable person should be able to think of falls under at least the fourth if not also the first three. You are clearly eschewing the potential safety of a locked door of your own free will, knowing full well what you plan to do and with the definitive purpose of using your weapon to stop the intruder. If you say you didn't think of locking your door and calling the police then it's not hard to argue that you're acting recklessly.
To be justifiably "Self defense" or "defense of a third party" you have to be in a position where there is no other obvious, non-violent course of actions that doesn't put yourself or the third party at even greater risk. The case of a home intruder is not such a case since there is a much safer (For all parties involved) course of action which our court considers obvious.
just a quick update to what I posted below about different climates of crime and fear.
Per 100,000 citizens:
Canada has 1.5 homicides compared to 541 cases of Breaking and Entering. Or a ratio of about 0.25
USA has 5.0 homicides compared to 716 cases of Burglary. or a ratio of about 0.7. Which is to say, almost 3 times as high
These are rough numbers of course but it shows my point that in Canada you are much less likely to be murdered while only somewhat less likely to have your house broken into so the chances of a Canadian's first thought after someone breaks in being "he might want to murder me" instead of "someone's trying to steal my things" are much lower. This is why this debate between us can't go anywhere. We intrinsically think about forceful entry differently.
interestingly. Canada also seems to have a higher violent crime rate. But this is more likely due to our lower threshold of what constitutes "violent" crime rather than more instances of violent crime. (any assault in Canada is categorized as violent crime even if there is no physical violence involved).
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not.
emphasis obviously mine. This is the strawman of your side because at every point you encounter any person the threat is nonzero. It doesn't matter if he's willing to harm you. If you don't go and actively confront him then it's a non-point. Only if he actively plans to harm you regardless of what you do does that make it a matter of self defense. I'm WILLING to harm a lot of people should they threaten my with a gun. You quite clearly are as well. That doesn't mean I either want to or plan to go out of my way for such an opportunity or that my willingness to do so means that someone with a gun is justified in murdering me "just in case".
You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
No. I'm not. I'm asking the homeowner to avoid direct confrontation when not required which, actually, puts both parties at lower risk.
It seems pretty clear to me that we're just arguing in circles now based on being raised in different climates of risk and crime and holding different assumptions and values. So I'm thinking we should probably wrap this up soon on an "Agree to disagree" note.
Actually, since I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian. We're international peacekeepers. Our only directives include defending our country and contributing to international security. Which are the military equivalents of self defense and defense of a third party.
There has to ALSO to be a point where the person defending himself can justifiably say they are actually defending themself and not just shooting a guy trying to rob them.
It has nothing to do with a "fair fight", it has to do with knowing that it's "actually a fight at all".
Until the guy actively shows signs of coming after you and not just your flatscreen TV, you're not defending yourself. You're not defending your family. You're just murdering a person.
Yeah, but there's a difference between having the gun and actively seeking the person out with it. If you call the police, pull out your gun and try to stay quiet but they burst into your room with a weapon then even in Canada you'd be protected under self defense.
But if you choose to go downstairs, find the person, point the gun at them and provoke an altercation then you are no longer protected up here. That's the difference.
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm saying in Canada we don't consider peace of mind and property more valuable than human life and as a result, do not have those laws.
Slashdot Mirror
saying "the time is the issue to me" does not make time the issue. Like I stated. If the issue were merely time, then there would be one hourly wage that we had all agreed upon for a person's time. Maybe with a multiplier for how much energy the expel. But That's not how pay works. The more expertise and specialized knowledge and skill a task requires, the more the task is typically considered "worth". That's why someone ho spends 8 hours lifting heavy boxes and expelling huge amounts of energy makes 12 dollars an hour and someone who sits around typing up code expending relatively little energy makes much more.
Also: what are your thoughts on sneaking into a concert? Do you consider that OK since the band is going to perform anyways? They're going to expel just as much energy is 999 people buy tickets and 1 sneaks in as if 1 buys a ticket and 999 sneak in. So is THAT justified to you?
But the time isn't really the issue. You aren't paying the man X to come over and stand around near your pipes for a few hours. What you're actually paying for is his service. You are trading the benefit of his years of training and experience for X.
The fact that he has to come over and waste time in order to provide you with the benefit of his skills merely INCREASES the price. That's why the more highly trained someone is, the more they charge per hour. You aren't paying for time. You're paying for the benefit of the investment of time and money that went into developing that skill.
That is why copyright law exists. So that results of skill, the fruits of which can be easily benefited from without compensating the creator, don't lead to violation of the same deal. The artist has just as much right to only allow people who have met his conditions and his X receive the fruits of his years of accumulated talent involving the cost (time and or money) of music training, the opportunity cost of going into a different profession, the cost of equipment, promotion etc.
Potential revenue is not revenue. I am not disputing this point. What I'm disputing is the claim that you should be allowed to receive the result of the artists work without paying the amount they agree to. You don't have to buy the album. That's totally fine. Their failure to convince you to is their loss of revenue. But if you download the album and not pay for it, you have broken a deal you knew existed, you have effectively, as soon as you finish downloading that album, turned "potential income" into "stolen goods" because you have received your end of the deal without giving the rightful owner their end and you are legally liable for that end. Like I said, if you don't feel the deal is worth it, you can just NOT get the album. But you can't have it both ways. You can't benefit from the service and not pay the amount asked for in exchange for that benefit.
I'm going to assume you mean "you wasted his time".
File sharing DOES directly "waste the time", as you put it, of the artist. Like the plumbing example. The plumber has the following deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, working pipes, in exchange for X dollars." if you get the fruits of this service, and do not give him X dollars, you are depriving him of his due income.
Musicians have the same deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, a collection of recorded musical tracks, in exchange for X dollars." If you get this collection but do not give the musician X dollars. You are depriving him of due income. If you feel X is too much, or do not like the way X will be divided or who has the right to X then you have the legal option to NOT ENTER IN THE DEAL. But if you acquire for yourself a copy of the fruits of their labour and do not pay them X, you are depriving them of due payment.
No, seriously, deprivation doesn't require ownership. If someone is sleep deprived they do not have sleep they already have removed. They are denied further sleep.
If a plumber comes over and fixes your pipes, and you then refuse to pay him, you are depriving him of his wages. He at no point HAD your money, but you are still taking his services without compensating him for them.
Instead of paying the 12 pounds, can I just copy whatever I get for joining off my friend who did? I feel it's more in the spirit of what you represent.
No. Actually to be deprived of something you need to not be given it when you otherwise would. If you deprive your child of food you aren't taking away food he already has. You're not giving him food he should have.
I recently switched to Chrome because it DOESN'T creep its way up to the 2 gig memory usage mark after awhile like Firefox has recently been doing on my machine. It had nothing to do with how shiny Chrome is.
You mean the CSE? The Canadian agency that works with, but is entirely separate from and not related to, the NSA?
See the queen or the GG?
If you can argue a preacher "sells" their beliefs and then require proof of their faith you would shut down all religions ever. That's not how it works.
he prorogued parliament. Effectively shut down the entire system for 3 months.
I don't know how people still support him after that. It was a flagrant misuse of the prorogation system to bypass a legitimate political procedure designed specifically for that situation. If I were the GG I'd have told him to go eat a dick on the queen's behalf and take his power loss like a man.
I recall the opposition getting together to hold a no confidence vote. Harper nuked the government for 3 months in response.
they can say "God hate's fags". They can't say "everyone should kill fags"
we define "hate" pretty specifically.
It's too long to write out in full but basically you need to publicly call for or advocate violence against a minority group with intent of people listening to you and going through with it.
I uh... I don't they plan to shoot the packets until they give up their information.
I'm sorry, where was the USA mentioned in this? When the Canadian government tried to have the Canadian ISPs give the Canadian law enforcement agency more information?
I suppose my problem with your conclusion is that if I hear someone break into my house, I can easily lock the door to my room and call the police. And since I assume you have a gun, you can also point it directly at the door after that. Once this has been accomplished, I can be pretty sure that the only way I will be in any danger from the intruder is if he actively attempts to violently break down my door (in which case nobody is going to argue against self defense when there's a bedroom door off its hinges) or if I make the conscious choice to go and track down the intruder.
If I do the second, with a weapon, I am willfully and intentionally putting myself in potential danger for the sake of forcing a confrontation that I could otherwise have probably avoided. If your chief concern is safety then going out to locate the potentially violent party and antagonize him with a weapon is not the appropriate course of action. Tracking the person down only makes sense if you're trying to stop him from doing what he's doing regardless of his motive.
Since legal theory (mens rea specifically) doesn't allow illegal actions that can't be described as being done "willfully, knowingly or purposefully" or CAN be described as having been done "recklessly or negligently" the action tracking the person down despite having safer options that any mentally capable person should be able to think of falls under at least the fourth if not also the first three. You are clearly eschewing the potential safety of a locked door of your own free will, knowing full well what you plan to do and with the definitive purpose of using your weapon to stop the intruder. If you say you didn't think of locking your door and calling the police then it's not hard to argue that you're acting recklessly.
To be justifiably "Self defense" or "defense of a third party" you have to be in a position where there is no other obvious, non-violent course of actions that doesn't put yourself or the third party at even greater risk. The case of a home intruder is not such a case since there is a much safer (For all parties involved) course of action which our court considers obvious.
just a quick update to what I posted below about different climates of crime and fear.
Per 100,000 citizens:
Canada has 1.5 homicides compared to 541 cases of Breaking and Entering. Or a ratio of about 0.25
USA has 5.0 homicides compared to 716 cases of Burglary. or a ratio of about 0.7. Which is to say, almost 3 times as high
These are rough numbers of course but it shows my point that in Canada you are much less likely to be murdered while only somewhat less likely to have your house broken into so the chances of a Canadian's first thought after someone breaks in being "he might want to murder me" instead of "someone's trying to steal my things" are much lower. This is why this debate between us can't go anywhere. We intrinsically think about forceful entry differently.
interestingly. Canada also seems to have a higher violent crime rate. But this is more likely due to our lower threshold of what constitutes "violent" crime rather than more instances of violent crime. (any assault in Canada is categorized as violent crime even if there is no physical violence involved).
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not.
emphasis obviously mine. This is the strawman of your side because at every point you encounter any person the threat is nonzero. It doesn't matter if he's willing to harm you. If you don't go and actively confront him then it's a non-point. Only if he actively plans to harm you regardless of what you do does that make it a matter of self defense. I'm WILLING to harm a lot of people should they threaten my with a gun. You quite clearly are as well. That doesn't mean I either want to or plan to go out of my way for such an opportunity or that my willingness to do so means that someone with a gun is justified in murdering me "just in case".
You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
No. I'm not. I'm asking the homeowner to avoid direct confrontation when not required which, actually, puts both parties at lower risk.
It seems pretty clear to me that we're just arguing in circles now based on being raised in different climates of risk and crime and holding different assumptions and values. So I'm thinking we should probably wrap this up soon on an "Agree to disagree" note.
Actually, since I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian. We're international peacekeepers. Our only directives include defending our country and contributing to international security. Which are the military equivalents of self defense and defense of a third party.
There has to ALSO to be a point where the person defending himself can justifiably say they are actually defending themself and not just shooting a guy trying to rob them.
It has nothing to do with a "fair fight", it has to do with knowing that it's "actually a fight at all".
Until the guy actively shows signs of coming after you and not just your flatscreen TV, you're not defending yourself. You're not defending your family. You're just murdering a person.
Yeah, but there's a difference between having the gun and actively seeking the person out with it. If you call the police, pull out your gun and try to stay quiet but they burst into your room with a weapon then even in Canada you'd be protected under self defense.
But if you choose to go downstairs, find the person, point the gun at them and provoke an altercation then you are no longer protected up here. That's the difference.
so your response is "1" then?
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm saying in Canada we don't consider peace of mind and property more valuable than human life and as a result, do not have those laws.