One day I hope you work in a field which suffers from incessant piracy and you remember back to when you thought it was OK.
"One day I hope you become a murderer who is caught and put in prison and you remember back to when you thought murderers should be put in prison."
I can quite literally apply that logic to just about any situation imaginable. The fact that someone's mind may change in the future does not indicate that their current views are 'wrong'.
Also, whether it is or is not "okay" is likely subjective.
Shut up and give me the money you owe me. I saw you--you walked into a competitor's store and bought something! If you would've walked into my store and bought something, I would've had more money! That's clearly a lost sale (which is a loss of potential gain).
Why do you enjoy stealing things that I didn't have to begin with from me?
Yes, "should." According to who? You stated that as a fact.
but I stand fast by my opinion that IP must be protected if we expect to continue to see creative works.
Creative works would likely always be made. Perhaps less of them (even a lot less), but they would still likely exist.
Bittorrent software is designed to allow people to download pirate movies and music.
It can be used to share anything. I know of few technologies whose sole purpose is to allow you to infringe upon copyright.
Can you prove that that's what it was designed for? Not that I think it matters. It can be used for other things, and just because some people 'abuse' it doesn't, to me, indicate that the technology is bad or should be banned.
Maybe I should have just said that tracking becomes much more simple and effective. You really don't have much privacy in a public setting, but usually someone isn't constantly watching you when you're in a specific area, or recording your every move (unlike a human).
No, I wasn't. I simply told about the difference between hiring a worker to follow someone around and using cameras to track people. Change the "24/7" to something else, if you want.
In short: tracking people is much easier and more effective.
That said, I'm really not a fan of cameras being everywhere (I see them as almost pointless). You may voluntarily visit a business, but if the cameras are everywhere, your options are severely limited.
How is this different from hiring low-paid staff to log traffic and follow suspicious looking people?
The difference is that a human worker can't follow everyone around 24/7 and watch their every move like cameras can. This results in a much greater loss of privacy (yes, yes, privacy in a public setting) for more people. Hiring people to follow others around takes quite a bit of time and resources, and they can't be everywhere at once.
Indeed. Both the questioner and especially the poster to whom you replied have taken the stance that "education" is merely a synonym/thin disguise for propaganda and spin of a very particular and very narrow viewpoint.
And it appears that that even applies to the very poster you replied to.
I know at least a few people who are anti-piracy, but even they view it as something less harmful than jaywalking. I can't believe they'd spend all this money and go through all this effort to do something that will result in absolutely nothing.
But then it seems like you go on to act as if your opinions are actually facts (that copyright should exist and must be protected).
As 'geeks', we've provided the public with the ability to break IP protection laws with impunity.
Really? A lot of the technology has multiple uses. I doubt much of it is specifically designed to allow people to more easily infringe upon another's copyright without getting caught.
Pray tell, WHO are these "intelligent" and "well-informed" people? the politicians have proven that they know squat about the internet while boasting their knowledge of it.
It appears that he meant that the people (customers/voters) have to be intelligent and well-informed if they want to make the corporations/government serve their interests, not that the people who make up corporations/governments are intelligent and/or well-informed.
Really? And which deity decided that they "shouldn't" do such a thing? Or were you speaking from a legal standpoint (in which case, I don't think you made that clear).
you destroy all credibility for your side by also partaking in piracy.
I've never understood this mentality. "Your side does X! Therefore, all of my arguments are somehow more credible and yours are less so!" Doesn't seem logical to me.
moral low ground
I believe this is subjective, too.
You have no right to "blame" anyone while you're on the moral low ground
What is this, a veiled tu quoque fallacy? "I think you're just as bad and just as much at fault as them! Therefore, you can't say it's their fault!" I see no logical reason that that would be the case.
Murderers and rapists may exist, but that does not mean that the government should put every person in prison just to try to stop them. If they did, would you say that the government wasn't at fault? I very much doubt it, and I don't think this is much different. Some lawmakers try to pass laws which will more than likely bring about collateral damage. Pirates might exist, but that doesn't mean that the people who drafted the bills aren't at fault or that they're somehow less at fault. After all, the bills wouldn't exist if they didn't create them.
it says to me that whoever wrote it reads very little and is therefore probably not very well educated
Amazing. I wish I could accurately determine someone's intelligence and what their hobbies are merely by watching them make a single mistake. How did you gain such an ability?
The fact that "all" (I doubt it) of them do it, or that it's an old practice, doesn't mean that it's objectively okay. I don't think it even means that it's not a worthy reason to boycott Apple (and then probably any others who do the same thing afterwards, or perhaps even at the same time).
The consumer for buying it, and the producer for implementing this garbage. I don't believe you can say, "But they just wanted money!" to justify anything.
And you're basically the reason these scumbags pass these laws.
I'd rather blame the people who actually try to pass these laws. I think it's absolutely nonsensical to state things such as, "If pirates stopping pirating things, they wouldn't try to pass these draconian laws that hurt everyone, and they wouldn't implement draconian DRM that hurts their own customers!" Who is responsible for such things? They are. They're actually making a conscious decision to harm their own customers and innocent people just so they can try (and fail) to stop a few people from downloading things.
That's not what I meant (although that is indeed what I said). I meant the fact that he was actually jailed and that possessing such knowledge is actually illegal.
Are the thousands dead that the asshole I replied to mentioned an improvement?
No matter what the cost, I don't believe we should arrest people merely because we think they might commit a crime. I think we should have to prove that they were planning to commit the crime (or arrest them after it has already happened).
Slashdot Mirror
One day I hope you work in a field which suffers from incessant piracy and you remember back to when you thought it was OK.
"One day I hope you become a murderer who is caught and put in prison and you remember back to when you thought murderers should be put in prison."
I can quite literally apply that logic to just about any situation imaginable. The fact that someone's mind may change in the future does not indicate that their current views are 'wrong'.
Also, whether it is or is not "okay" is likely subjective.
Shut up and give me the money you owe me. I saw you--you walked into a competitor's store and bought something! If you would've walked into my store and bought something, I would've had more money! That's clearly a lost sale (which is a loss of potential gain).
Why do you enjoy stealing things that I didn't have to begin with from me?
I said intellectual property should be protected.
Yes, "should." According to who? You stated that as a fact.
but I stand fast by my opinion that IP must be protected if we expect to continue to see creative works.
Creative works would likely always be made. Perhaps less of them (even a lot less), but they would still likely exist.
Bittorrent software is designed to allow people to download pirate movies and music.
It can be used to share anything. I know of few technologies whose sole purpose is to allow you to infringe upon copyright.
Can you prove that that's what it was designed for? Not that I think it matters. It can be used for other things, and just because some people 'abuse' it doesn't, to me, indicate that the technology is bad or should be banned.
but the average user doesn't.
Can you prove this, too?
(I'm surprised you even tried this approach...)
Why?
Maybe I should have just said that tracking becomes much more simple and effective. You really don't have much privacy in a public setting, but usually someone isn't constantly watching you when you're in a specific area, or recording your every move (unlike a human).
No, I wasn't. I simply told about the difference between hiring a worker to follow someone around and using cameras to track people. Change the "24/7" to something else, if you want.
In short: tracking people is much easier and more effective.
That said, I'm really not a fan of cameras being everywhere (I see them as almost pointless). You may voluntarily visit a business, but if the cameras are everywhere, your options are severely limited.
How is this different from hiring low-paid staff to log traffic and follow suspicious looking people?
The difference is that a human worker can't follow everyone around 24/7 and watch their every move like cameras can. This results in a much greater loss of privacy (yes, yes, privacy in a public setting) for more people. Hiring people to follow others around takes quite a bit of time and resources, and they can't be everywhere at once.
Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated.
"Everyone"? How can you be sure of that?
Indeed. Both the questioner and especially the poster to whom you replied have taken the stance that "education" is merely a synonym/thin disguise for propaganda and spin of a very particular and very narrow viewpoint.
And it appears that that even applies to the very poster you replied to.
Mega Conspiracy
Really, now?
I know at least a few people who are anti-piracy, but even they view it as something less harmful than jaywalking. I can't believe they'd spend all this money and go through all this effort to do something that will result in absolutely nothing.
Yes, because all criminals in jail should be released.
I don't see where he said that. He just said that he disagreed with the methods.
Basically your retort is, "...but I like stealing shit."
I don't see where he said that, either. I don't even see how it's relevant.
Where does the money come to pay someone in advance if the product they are making is handed out for free?
Since he mentioned kickstarter, I believe he means from people who like the idea and wish to see someone actually create something.
Well said.
But then it seems like you go on to act as if your opinions are actually facts (that copyright should exist and must be protected).
As 'geeks', we've provided the public with the ability to break IP protection laws with impunity.
Really? A lot of the technology has multiple uses. I doubt much of it is specifically designed to allow people to more easily infringe upon another's copyright without getting caught.
Pray tell, WHO are these "intelligent" and "well-informed" people? the politicians have proven that they know squat about the internet while boasting their knowledge of it.
It appears that he meant that the people (customers/voters) have to be intelligent and well-informed if they want to make the corporations/government serve their interests, not that the people who make up corporations/governments are intelligent and/or well-informed.
On the internet, this conversation is less interactive.
But the errors are still easily identifiable.
That said, I don't believe that someone having poor English indicates that they don't read or that they're not good in other areas.
No, not subjective at all.
Really? And which deity decided that they "shouldn't" do such a thing? Or were you speaking from a legal standpoint (in which case, I don't think you made that clear).
you destroy all credibility for your side by also partaking in piracy.
I've never understood this mentality. "Your side does X! Therefore, all of my arguments are somehow more credible and yours are less so!" Doesn't seem logical to me.
moral low ground
I believe this is subjective, too.
You have no right to "blame" anyone while you're on the moral low ground
What is this, a veiled tu quoque fallacy? "I think you're just as bad and just as much at fault as them! Therefore, you can't say it's their fault!" I see no logical reason that that would be the case.
Murderers and rapists may exist, but that does not mean that the government should put every person in prison just to try to stop them. If they did, would you say that the government wasn't at fault? I very much doubt it, and I don't think this is much different. Some lawmakers try to pass laws which will more than likely bring about collateral damage. Pirates might exist, but that doesn't mean that the people who drafted the bills aren't at fault or that they're somehow less at fault. After all, the bills wouldn't exist if they didn't create them.
it says to me that whoever wrote it reads very little and is therefore probably not very well educated
Amazing. I wish I could accurately determine someone's intelligence and what their hobbies are merely by watching them make a single mistake. How did you gain such an ability?
The fact that "all" (I doubt it) of them do it, or that it's an old practice, doesn't mean that it's objectively okay. I don't think it even means that it's not a worthy reason to boycott Apple (and then probably any others who do the same thing afterwards, or perhaps even at the same time).
AT&T managers are greedy evil bastards with the morals of a serial rapist
I'd say that's subjective.
but that doesn't make us common folk the second coming of Christ.
I don't think that many people would claim that it does. They probably just draw a line at some arbitrary point.
But if you buy from them, then you'll have less money to give to someone else!
That's clearly a lost sale. You little thief!
I'd say the fault lies with both of them.
The consumer for buying it, and the producer for implementing this garbage. I don't believe you can say, "But they just wanted money!" to justify anything.
but definitely don't steal it.
What about downloading it?
And you're basically the reason these scumbags pass these laws.
I'd rather blame the people who actually try to pass these laws. I think it's absolutely nonsensical to state things such as, "If pirates stopping pirating things, they wouldn't try to pass these draconian laws that hurt everyone, and they wouldn't implement draconian DRM that hurts their own customers!" Who is responsible for such things? They are. They're actually making a conscious decision to harm their own customers and innocent people just so they can try (and fail) to stop a few people from downloading things.
you shouldn't acquire the product either.
"shouldn't"? Subjective.
That's not what I meant (although that is indeed what I said). I meant the fact that he was actually jailed and that possessing such knowledge is actually illegal.
Are the thousands dead that the asshole I replied to mentioned an improvement?
No matter what the cost, I don't believe we should arrest people merely because we think they might commit a crime. I think we should have to prove that they were planning to commit the crime (or arrest them after it has already happened).
I know this because it's human nature. ....
Not all humans are the same. And since I doubt you know much about this specific person, I don't think you can state what he would do as a fact.