Well, yes. We're talking about what I'd do in some hypothetical scenario.
You expected empirical evidence here? Even after I tried to state everything as an opinion and/or guess? I never said that I know what I'd do with 100% accuracy. If I had to guess, I wouldn't panic at the mere mention of the word "fire." Perhaps people in theaters simply become brain dead?
By the way, where exactly do you think instincts come from?
Does it matter? I do not believe it is likely that someone could instantly assume that someone screaming "fire" is telling the truth without evaluating whether what they said is true or not and then "instinctively" start to panic, stampede all over everyone, and do all of this without thinking. They might get scared, but running out of the theater was their own decision.
Yes, unless you're a "sociopath*" or want to get labeled as one.
The internet psychologists are already labeling random strangers as sociopaths.
That magical entity is called a psyche or subconscious. Stupid people have them, and they make up a larger percentage of their ego, but you have one too. E.g. fight or flight instinct. Ever heard of it?
I sure have. I've just never been in a situation where I lost all control of my body and that resulted in me doing such complicated tasks (such as escaping from a theater). There are a few things that I could imagine, but assuming that someone is correct because they screamed something and stampeding over everyone isn't one of them.
You can't even rationally think your way from one end of a sentence to the other.
Huh? I don't understand. I merely pointed out the obvious (that individuals make up crowds). That might not have been the reply you desired, and I may not have fully responded to everything you said, but what exactly is not rational about that? As far as I know, it isn't illogical to say that individuals make up crowds.
No I'm saying you don't know how you'll react in a panicking crowd until you're in one.
I see. Well, I never meant to imply that I do know, for a fact, how I would react.
Of course you do, everyone likes to think they are above the common herd.
Yeah. Now you're, in a way, starting to sound like me. All I can do is take what I know about myself and guess. I think I'm very calm, but I do not know with 100% accuracy what I would do in such a situation. But that can be applied to anything.
But... "everyone"? Can you prove that?
People are people, and people behave irrationally most of the time.
Do they? What is your definition of "irrational"? What is it that makes you believe that people (I'm assuming you meant everyone) behave "irrationally" most of the time? Do you have proof of this?
But I really do believe all of this is irrelevant. We were talking about someone, for instance, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Obviously (and again, this is assuming that people would panic just from that, which I highly doubt), there would likely not be any panicking before that. So why, then, would they be guilt-free if they assume that the person who screamed "fire" was telling the truth, began to panic, and then injured someone while trying to 'save' themselves from a threat that they don't even know exists? If they can't see the fire, further investigating the issue would be, to me, the sensible choice. Not automatically assuming there is one and pretending that you're not responsible for anything that happens.
People are animals, and the vast majority of what every one of them does is instinctual, not conscious and rational.
Wait... so you're saying that if someone screamed "fire" and everyone around me began panicking, I would do the same? If so, I highly doubt that. I'd probably be one of the people injured by the panicking people (yes, by the panicking people). If you don't know me personally, it becomes much harder than usual to predict what I'd do in situation X (especially if X is a complicated situation).
You may do some things instinctively, but that doesn't mean you don't have a brain.
Crowds behave differently from individuals
Individuals make up crowds.
And it's impossible for him to sit behind his keyboard and predict what instincts will make him do when in the middle of a fearful crowd.
"make" him do? Surely, they would likely have an effect on him. But it isn't as if he'll lose all control of his thinking and some magical entity will take over his body and force him to do things against his will. Any choice he makes is still his own decision.
Yeah, but allowing those might force people to think for themselves and actually attempt to determine whether what someone is saying is true or not. Who wants to face a penalty for trampling over someone in a theater while trying to escape (assuming such a thing would ever take place to begin with)? It's so much easier to claim that someone's voice took control of your body and forced you to panic like a brainless animal and injure someone.
That's not necessarily an indication that US colleges are good. It could just mean that they believe that they're better than their colleges (which doesn't necessarily mean they're good).
except that even as a non-pirate I can see that the means employed to stop these "anonymous thieving pirates" are becoming increasingly fascist and removed from the principles of enlightenment.
Hold on a minute here! You just said something that a pirate might say. Therefore, you're a pirate. That makes you extremely biased. And that means you're wrong!
Once they create something, if it is copied and reproduced against their will as the people who invested the time, energy, and (potentially) money into creation, that amounts to being forced to give it away.
Not really. They could just keep it to themselves and never release it. They're not forced to give it away.
After they release it, maybe. But again, I don't think this is at all comparable to slavery in any form. They chose to make it and they chose to release it.
They're not forced to do either. No one is forcing them to create the work, and they're not forcing them to give it away. The work will be copied without any involvement from them. No one is holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to do something.
Some people (not sure if you do since you just mentioned there being potential legal problems) act as if websites can't profit from subscription services and/or advertisements because there is a chance that some of their users could be using the website to infringe upon someone's copyright.
Actually, even before copyright was invented, the creator of a work automatically had a right of exclusivity
I don't believe they had such a "right." I believe rights are defined by law. Rather, they were just keeping the work to themselves. No "rights" were involved.
The whole point of copyright is to offer some incentive for the creator to retain some of their exclusivity as an incentive to publish and share it with the community.
I understand that and I wasn't disputing that. Although I don't think copyright should exist at all (regardless of whether or not that would mean less works would be created), I was merely saying that I don't think that "exclusivity" can be stolen.
The reaction from people who say this is a bad thing, it is not that ACTA is a bad thing, they are reacting to a notion that what they are doing is wrong.
"Wrong" by whose standards?
And apparently anyone who opposes the ACTA is automatically someone who infringes upon copyright themselves. He seems to be a fan of generalizations and irrelevancy.
If you say copying other people’s copyright is an OK thing to do, then you are saying that theft is OK.
No, not really. Not the "theft" part at least. Not "theft" as most people likely know it. I guess "theft" means "copying" now. Sure, I feel that kind of "theft" is okay. Kind of redundant to restate that fact, though, isn't it?
If someone holds a copyright, then they are supposed to have exclusivity on deciding who else may copy the work.
According to the current laws (which I disagree with), yes.
if a person has a lawfully recognized right to some resource, and another person utilizes a portion of that resource such that there is less of that resource available to the former person, then there is some logical validity to the notion that the latter person has stolen that measure of the resource from the former person.
I don't believe that "exclusivity" is a resource. I believe it's a concept. You might technically lose your ability to claim that you have the exclusive ability to distribute something, but no one can 'steal' exclusivity. No one else has exclusivity after you lose it. It's simply gone (the idea, at least).
I wouldn't say they were harmed, and I certainly wouldn't say they were robbed. They lost nothing that actually exists (beyond a mere idea that they have the ability to do something) that they had to begin with. And, legally, they still have exclusivity. That is the whole basis on which they can sue you. You don't magically lose your exclusivity in the eyes of the law merely because someone infringed upon your copyright (even if you did, I still wouldn't call it theft). The only remaining thing that I see is the person's ability to believe they have exclusivity.
But even if they did completely lose all of their exclusivity (legally as well), what effect would that have on them? What has happened to them? Most likely nothing. Most likely, they didn't even notice anything (and unless they're aware that someone, somewhere copied something, they'll never know, and they'll never find anything missing because they've lost nothing tangible). They've literally only lost some idea, and that's only if they're aware of the infringement.
but what right do YOU have to be telling other creators that you expect them all to do likewise?
You're asking me what "right" I have? Legally, at least right now, none. But what was your point? That could change in an instant if we scrapped copyright completely. I don't believe that rights come from anywhere but the law. They're simply artificial constructs. What "right" do you have to do anything?
Which doesn't make it correct, doesn't mean it should stay, and doesn't mean that it isn't just a vague idea that harms no one when they're not able to believe they have it.
I do not believe you can "steal" exclusivity. Just like I think you can't "steal" my ability to believe in Santa Clause. If you're just talking about their ability to believe that they have exclusive rights to distribute the products, then I don't think that's much of an improvement. I don't think any of it can be stolen, and I don't think 'losing' this idea harms them. I think even the "potential profit" argument holds more weight (I believe money actually has a quantifiable value, even if only potential, unlike some vague idea of exclusivity).
have effectively taken away a measure of some of the exclusivity that he or she once had.
I wonder how one steals a "right," though. Does you, as the alleged 'thief', suddenly have the "right" that the author once had? If the author lost the "right," then surely that means that they no longer have any legal basis to sue you? Is someone really harmed because some they can no longer believe in some vague idea (that they have the 'exclusive' right to distribute something)?
What if it was a road bike and I told you not to use it off road or it voided the warrantee?
Huh?
What if you sold a mountain bike with a little basket on the front, then found out that approximately 0.01% of your customers used it. You think the 99.99% give a crap when it's removed?
Right. Because ripping off a minority of your customer base is perfectly acceptable because they're just a minority.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes. We're talking about what I'd do in some hypothetical scenario.
You expected empirical evidence here? Even after I tried to state everything as an opinion and/or guess? I never said that I know what I'd do with 100% accuracy. If I had to guess, I wouldn't panic at the mere mention of the word "fire." Perhaps people in theaters simply become brain dead?
By the way, where exactly do you think instincts come from?
Does it matter? I do not believe it is likely that someone could instantly assume that someone screaming "fire" is telling the truth without evaluating whether what they said is true or not and then "instinctively" start to panic, stampede all over everyone, and do all of this without thinking. They might get scared, but running out of the theater was their own decision.
Yes, unless you're a "sociopath*" or want to get labeled as one.
The internet psychologists are already labeling random strangers as sociopaths.
That magical entity is called a psyche or subconscious. Stupid people have them, and they make up a larger percentage of their ego, but you have one too. E.g. fight or flight instinct. Ever heard of it?
I sure have. I've just never been in a situation where I lost all control of my body and that resulted in me doing such complicated tasks (such as escaping from a theater). There are a few things that I could imagine, but assuming that someone is correct because they screamed something and stampeding over everyone isn't one of them.
You can't even rationally think your way from one end of a sentence to the other.
Huh? I don't understand. I merely pointed out the obvious (that individuals make up crowds). That might not have been the reply you desired, and I may not have fully responded to everything you said, but what exactly is not rational about that? As far as I know, it isn't illogical to say that individuals make up crowds.
No I'm saying you don't know how you'll react in a panicking crowd until you're in one.
I see. Well, I never meant to imply that I do know, for a fact, how I would react.
Of course you do, everyone likes to think they are above the common herd.
Yeah. Now you're, in a way, starting to sound like me. All I can do is take what I know about myself and guess. I think I'm very calm, but I do not know with 100% accuracy what I would do in such a situation. But that can be applied to anything.
But... "everyone"? Can you prove that?
People are people, and people behave irrationally most of the time.
Do they? What is your definition of "irrational"? What is it that makes you believe that people (I'm assuming you meant everyone) behave "irrationally" most of the time? Do you have proof of this?
But I really do believe all of this is irrelevant. We were talking about someone, for instance, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Obviously (and again, this is assuming that people would panic just from that, which I highly doubt), there would likely not be any panicking before that. So why, then, would they be guilt-free if they assume that the person who screamed "fire" was telling the truth, began to panic, and then injured someone while trying to 'save' themselves from a threat that they don't even know exists? If they can't see the fire, further investigating the issue would be, to me, the sensible choice. Not automatically assuming there is one and pretending that you're not responsible for anything that happens.
People are animals, and the vast majority of what every one of them does is instinctual, not conscious and rational.
Wait... so you're saying that if someone screamed "fire" and everyone around me began panicking, I would do the same? If so, I highly doubt that. I'd probably be one of the people injured by the panicking people (yes, by the panicking people). If you don't know me personally, it becomes much harder than usual to predict what I'd do in situation X (especially if X is a complicated situation).
You may do some things instinctively, but that doesn't mean you don't have a brain.
Crowds behave differently from individuals
Individuals make up crowds.
And it's impossible for him to sit behind his keyboard and predict what instincts will make him do when in the middle of a fearful crowd.
"make" him do? Surely, they would likely have an effect on him. But it isn't as if he'll lose all control of his thinking and some magical entity will take over his body and force him to do things against his will. Any choice he makes is still his own decision.
Yeah, but allowing those might force people to think for themselves and actually attempt to determine whether what someone is saying is true or not. Who wants to face a penalty for trampling over someone in a theater while trying to escape (assuming such a thing would ever take place to begin with)? It's so much easier to claim that someone's voice took control of your body and forced you to panic like a brainless animal and injure someone.
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17.
Depends on the person. Depends on the time. I don't think the solution is to simply give up.
you've already established the fact that you're anti-intellectual
What? What does that even mean? Are you saying that someone who doesn't want to learn about the same things as you do is "anti-intellectual"?
He didn't say anything about bears, so why are you assuming he's a hypocrite?
Also, that may be because the population is larger.
That's not necessarily an indication that US colleges are good. It could just mean that they believe that they're better than their colleges (which doesn't necessarily mean they're good).
except that even as a non-pirate I can see that the means employed to stop these "anonymous thieving pirates" are becoming increasingly fascist and removed from the principles of enlightenment.
Hold on a minute here! You just said something that a pirate might say. Therefore, you're a pirate. That makes you extremely biased. And that means you're wrong!
Once they create something, if it is copied and reproduced against their will as the people who invested the time, energy, and (potentially) money into creation, that amounts to being forced to give it away.
Not really. They could just keep it to themselves and never release it. They're not forced to give it away.
After they release it, maybe. But again, I don't think this is at all comparable to slavery in any form. They chose to make it and they chose to release it.
They're not forced to do either. No one is forcing them to create the work, and they're not forcing them to give it away. The work will be copied without any involvement from them. No one is holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to do something.
But I don't think that any of those things should be spying on us. None of them. Including drones.
Some people (not sure if you do since you just mentioned there being potential legal problems) act as if websites can't profit from subscription services and/or advertisements because there is a chance that some of their users could be using the website to infringe upon someone's copyright.
Right. Off of advertising. They're not selling the videos themselves.
Okay. It's copytheft, then. I think copytheft is perfectly acceptable!
Actually, even before copyright was invented, the creator of a work automatically had a right of exclusivity
I don't believe they had such a "right." I believe rights are defined by law. Rather, they were just keeping the work to themselves. No "rights" were involved.
The whole point of copyright is to offer some incentive for the creator to retain some of their exclusivity as an incentive to publish and share it with the community.
I understand that and I wasn't disputing that. Although I don't think copyright should exist at all (regardless of whether or not that would mean less works would be created), I was merely saying that I don't think that "exclusivity" can be stolen.
The reaction from people who say this is a bad thing, it is not that ACTA is a bad thing, they are reacting to a notion that what they are doing is wrong.
"Wrong" by whose standards?
And apparently anyone who opposes the ACTA is automatically someone who infringes upon copyright themselves. He seems to be a fan of generalizations and irrelevancy.
If you say copying other people’s copyright is an OK thing to do, then you are saying that theft is OK.
No, not really. Not the "theft" part at least. Not "theft" as most people likely know it. I guess "theft" means "copying" now. Sure, I feel that kind of "theft" is okay. Kind of redundant to restate that fact, though, isn't it?
Everyone is very keen on sharing until it is their stuff that is being shared.
"You're (presumably) a hypocrite. Therefore, all of your arguments are invalidated and sharing is objectively bad."
If someone holds a copyright, then they are supposed to have exclusivity on deciding who else may copy the work.
According to the current laws (which I disagree with), yes.
if a person has a lawfully recognized right to some resource, and another person utilizes a portion of that resource such that there is less of that resource available to the former person, then there is some logical validity to the notion that the latter person has stolen that measure of the resource from the former person.
I don't believe that "exclusivity" is a resource. I believe it's a concept. You might technically lose your ability to claim that you have the exclusive ability to distribute something, but no one can 'steal' exclusivity. No one else has exclusivity after you lose it. It's simply gone (the idea, at least).
I wouldn't say they were harmed, and I certainly wouldn't say they were robbed. They lost nothing that actually exists (beyond a mere idea that they have the ability to do something) that they had to begin with. And, legally, they still have exclusivity. That is the whole basis on which they can sue you. You don't magically lose your exclusivity in the eyes of the law merely because someone infringed upon your copyright (even if you did, I still wouldn't call it theft). The only remaining thing that I see is the person's ability to believe they have exclusivity.
But even if they did completely lose all of their exclusivity (legally as well), what effect would that have on them? What has happened to them? Most likely nothing. Most likely, they didn't even notice anything (and unless they're aware that someone, somewhere copied something, they'll never know, and they'll never find anything missing because they've lost nothing tangible). They've literally only lost some idea, and that's only if they're aware of the infringement.
but what right do YOU have to be telling other creators that you expect them all to do likewise?
You're asking me what "right" I have? Legally, at least right now, none. But what was your point? That could change in an instant if we scrapped copyright completely. I don't believe that rights come from anywhere but the law. They're simply artificial constructs. What "right" do you have to do anything?
The government only goes after the bad guys, after all. I know I want to be watched at all times.
For one, it's a deterrent to those few bad guys
That doesn't seem to be working in any noticeable way. Or, at least, not any way that I think is measurable.
it happens to be upheld by the law.
Which doesn't make it correct, doesn't mean it should stay, and doesn't mean that it isn't just a vague idea that harms no one when they're not able to believe they have it.
I do not believe you can "steal" exclusivity. Just like I think you can't "steal" my ability to believe in Santa Clause. If you're just talking about their ability to believe that they have exclusive rights to distribute the products, then I don't think that's much of an improvement. I don't think any of it can be stolen, and I don't think 'losing' this idea harms them. I think even the "potential profit" argument holds more weight (I believe money actually has a quantifiable value, even if only potential, unlike some vague idea of exclusivity).
have effectively taken away a measure of some of the exclusivity that he or she once had.
I wonder how one steals a "right," though. Does you, as the alleged 'thief', suddenly have the "right" that the author once had? If the author lost the "right," then surely that means that they no longer have any legal basis to sue you? Is someone really harmed because some they can no longer believe in some vague idea (that they have the 'exclusive' right to distribute something)?
What if it was a road bike and I told you not to use it off road or it voided the warrantee?
Huh?
What if you sold a mountain bike with a little basket on the front, then found out that approximately 0.01% of your customers used it. You think the 99.99% give a crap when it's removed?
Right. Because ripping off a minority of your customer base is perfectly acceptable because they're just a minority.
Why ban something entirely because of the actions of certain people? I don't think that's fair or sensible.