Obviously this is entirely correct, as no one ever gave someone else an order or instruction.
Speech itself can't make anyone do anything. It's possible to give orders, but speech doesn't have some magical ability to control people.
For instance, if I told you to commit suicide right now, would you do it? That's what I mean. You would have to be willing to do it (for one reason or another). The speech can't 'make' you do anything. It's just a sound.
How is that free speech? You're still being punished for the content of your speech. If you said "hello" and that made a group of people panic and stampede all over everyone else (for some unknown reason), injuring them, would you be held responsible? Probably not. But it was still your speech that supposedly 'made' those other people do what they did (even though it's, in my opinion, entirely their fault and speech can't make anyone do anything), even if no one ever figures out that that was the case. But what if they did figure out that that was the case? Would you be punished for the "effects" of your speech? Again, probably not.
So aren't they taking the content of your speech into account, then? Or does "intent" suddenly become a factor?
Why would he do that? It's not the speech that I think is bad, it's how people react to it.
For what it's worth, if your credit card numbers got out there, I would say "tough luck." I'd prefer that they didn't get out because of how some people act, and it's not the speech that I think is bad, but people doing things that I think are bad.
If you can only see one extreme or the other, you miss out on all the possibilities in between.
"See"? Well, just as you can, I can think about whether or not I want such magical technology. And if it exists, I definitely don't want it in the hands of the government.
I don't want the patriot act. I don't want the TSA. I don't want free speech zones.
If you think my opinion is 'extreme', then too bad for you. That's simply my opinion.
Regulation doesn't have to be the gestapo looking over your shoulder with a cat o' nine tails.
Doesn't have to be? Well, if humans were perfect (and their morals were aligned with yours), I'm sure it wouldn't be. The fact of the matter, though, is that humans make mistakes, act maliciously, and can be outright corrupt. With a group of humans (the government), the chances of one or more of those three things happening is even greater. That's why I wouldn't give the government such overreaching powers as this.
On the same token, if you don't traffic kiddy porn on the Internet, what reason is there to object to regulation of it unless you are guilty of it?
What's with the guilt by association (a logical fallacy)? You've done this multiple times now, and it seems like the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, only even more concentrated. The fact that someone makes an argument that another group could make doesn't mean that they're part of that group.
All privacy and free speech advocates are criminals? What I have a problem with is the implementation. I do not want normal, innocent people to be harmed when trying to stop criminals. I wish to minimize that harm as much as possible.
I wouldn't doubt it if you claimed to be a troll at this point (similar to Poe's Law). You seem to accuse anyone of being against what seems to be your "the ends justify the means" mentality of being a criminal.
If regulation offers an opportunity to reduce offensive material and malware from computers and the internet, why wouldn't any typical law abiding user support it?
"Reduce"? So if it reduced it by 0.0000001% it would be worth doing, no matter what the costs?
And "offensive" is just subjective.
C'mon buddy. You gotta be smarter than that. Phishing, spam, viruses, malware, hacking, cracking, skimming, etc... there's all sorts of threats to any computer connected to the internet.
None of which I feel are big enough issues to justify such overreaching powers for the government to have.
Its common for citizens of a free country to bitch about their government and take the security and political stability for granted.
Just because something could be worse doesn't mean that your current situation is good. Even China could get worse depending on your definition of "worse." This is like saying that you can't complain when someone murders your wife because they could have murdered your daughter, too.
I don't trust any government to do many things. Not the Chinese government, and not the US government. Especially not the Chinese government. And especially when it involves technology that allows for communication (and don't assume that I agree with all of its current practices).
include responsibility to voters
Yeah, and just like consumers, voters aren't always informed. Good thing that corporations often don't control nearly everything, too. I wouldn't trust them much, either. They can't, for instance, force me to use their locked down devices. The government can, though.
So because its impossible to stop murder and rape, we should disband the police force?
Amazing straw man. You might want to reread that again (perhaps even my entire post to see where I lie on this issue).
You act like the only choices are anarchy or a fascist government
Do you really expect me to believe that? How naive do you think I am?
I don't know. I guess it's nice for people to believe what you do, but I'll change my views if I begin to believe that they're wrong. That's all I meant.
You made it sound as if all that mattered was being convincing. As if facts don't matter at all. Unless you were just talking about opinions. But even then, I do not believe in saying that someone's opinion about a subjective matter is objectively wrong merely to appear 'convincing'.
Motive has a way of making someone appear a lot less convincing. a murderer will come up will all sorts of philosophical reasons as to why the death penalty is bad, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because it is obvious why a murderer wouldn't support the death penalty.
Unconvincing to who? I don't know about you, but I prefer to look at someone's arguments rather than their character before deciding whether or not their arguments are right or wrong (or whether I believe them or not). If I don't have enough information, I'll just say, "I don't know."
similiarly, its obvious why someone who doesn't care for copyright would oppose regulation intended to prevent copyright violation.
"Obvious" to who? That said, if you state it that way, it probably is likely that they would oppose it. But that does not mean that they violate copyright themselves.
Should people have the freedom to post kiddy porn on the web too?
Did I say that they should? No. I didn't say anything about it. I said that it's a fact that we must accept. Do you want to know what I believe? I believe they should go after the people who commit the crimes.
People will always die. People will always break the law. We don't need draconian regulations and laws to try to reach 'perfection' at the cost of freedom. Or, at least, I definitely don't want them.
The technological hurdles of regulation aren't actually that difficult.
Oh really? And how do we magically tell what data is copyrighted? How do we keep the government from invading people's privacy with their magical technology? Where on this planet do people have technology that can accurately distinguish between copyrighted data and non-copyrighted data (kiddie porn, etc)? Tell me exactly how such a thing would be implemented, without any inconveniences to innocents, and without a large potential for governmental abuse.
Where is the need for this? Where? I don't see it. Will the apocalypse come about if we don't implement this magical technology?
You apparently aren't much of a programmer either. There are plenty of websites in China.
For one thing, you don't have to be a programmer to know that there are plenty of websites in China.
Second of all, yes, there are plenty of websites and developers in China. But they haven't implemented the magical technology that you seem to be advocating. If you take a walled-garden style approach to computing, does it not make sense that it would be more difficult to create and release software (and generally tinker with everything)? If it's not, then what is the 'regulation' doing?
Third of all, why do you keep using China in your examples? Even their "great firewall" can be bypassed if you know what you're doing (and, admittedly, many people appear to be ignorant). And China isn't exactly a bastion of freedom, is it? That technology just allows them to abuse their citizens even more. That is exactly what I mean.
What do you think "tinkerers" in China can't do that you are free to do at the moment?
Where has China implemented such a thing on a national level in every computer? We were talking about your new censorship technology, right? How would walled-garden style computing 'protect' anyone if everything was completely open and free? Well, lik
Additionally, for what reason do we need such 'regulation'? Do you see a staggering need for it? What's wrong with how things are now? There are completely open computers, and there are walled gardens. You can choose which you want. What is wrong with this? Somehow, everything seems to be working with relatively minor problems. The apocalypse is not yet upon us.
So tell me, why do governments, known for their abuses of power (not unlike corporations), suddenly need to 'regulate' computers and make everything a walled garden (if that's even what you're saying)? Where is the need for this? The risks seem too great to me. I mean risks to free speech, to privacy, the fact that only they would have an idea of how they implemented such technology, etc.
I don't trust the government to do many things at all. I especially don't trust them around speech, and I think it's an awfully slippery slope to suggest that they need to regulate something that has such great potential for communication, among other things (such as developing software and various hobbies).
I simply do not see the need. Because someone might look at kiddie porn? So? Because someone might infringe upon copyright? So? Because someone might get hacked? So? All of those things happen, will continue to happen, and would likely happen no matter what. No system is perfect, and after thinking about the disadvantages to government sanctioned walled garden computing, I can only reject such a notion. As I said, I see no pressing need for such draconian regulations.
Oh wow you are a philosopher aren't you... stuck in a world of "what ifs".
I didn't see where I asked that many "what if" type questions.
Umm, gee, let me think... the fact that there are laws to help those people wouldn't by any chance imply that its a reasonably popular notion?
That proves that anyone who creates anything must respect copyright? "Popular" does not equate to "all." I never said that it wasn't a popular notion, so I don't know why, in this sentence, you acted as if that was the argument all along (which is what it seemed like).
No, not everyone, but that would also be obviously impossible to prove.
I think so, too.
Argument isn't about what is fact.
All I care about is fact. You can try to be as convincing as you want, but I will attempt to question everything that you say. You offered no real evidence, so I did not and still do not believe you. You might want to try such tactics on people who don't often question what others say.
You're not real good at this argument thing are you.
I suppose not. I'm not very interested in just saying things to convince others; I'm more interested in fact. I find the former to be completely idiotic (especially when they know what they're saying isn't true).
So what are you hoping to achieve from this conversation?
What are you hoping to achieve? The only reason I bother posting comments is for my own entertainment.
prove that I'm wrong or that you're right?
Given the arguments present, that seems like it would be quite difficult. They're simply too vague and seemingly nearly impossible to prove. Just as you probably can't prove that no artist on Earth dislikes copyright, I probably can't prove that one of them really doesn't like copyright (Who knows if they really don't?).
I think that regulation of personal computing wouldn't be bad because it would at least attempt to help protect users from questionable stuff (malware, kiddy porn, hacking, phishing, etc) that is difficult to protect against otherwise, and it would reduce the need for corporate-imposed DRM.
There is no "need" for corporate-imposed DRM. I don't use things that "need" it. If people want such 'protections', I think they should have that choice. I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom.
Tell me this: how would they implement such a thing? No, really. Tell me about this magical technology that will stop all illegal activity on personal computers without severely raising the bar for entry for developers and tinkerers (thereby potentially making less software and websites available). I've asked you how such a thing would be implemented multiple times, but I've yet to receive an answer (as far as I remember).
You disagree with regulation merely because it would hinder you from using your computer to engage in illegal activity
Can you read minds? Can you prove that that's my motive? Can you even prove that I actually engage in illegal activity (Hint: Being against copyright doesn't mean that someone is a copyright infringer.)? I'm starting to think that you really don't care about facts. You might, but at this point, I doubt it. The number of unproven assertions that you state as fact is seemingly staggering.
but your opinion is based on motive
And whose isn't? Surely you have a motive?
rather than reason (like a murderer opposing the death penalty).
You must be defining "reason" as "anything that I personally like." There is nothing inherently illogical about a murderer opposing the death penalty, and their arguments aren't necessarily wrong (which we've been through already). Just because you think someone is biased, that doesn't mean that their argum
Why would I bother going to any trouble to prove your point?
Did I tell you that you had to? Why would I bother going through the trouble of searching for something that I don't even care about? Whether they exist or not, my point remains.
You seem so fixated on the fact that I'm making assumptions
And stating them as facts. Here, let me demonstrate: "It only helps prove[...]"
I suppose that's not a mere assumption, but a statement of a fact.
justified on my part
"Justified"? According to who is it "justified"? That's subjective.
that you completely ignore the arguments I make that include assumptions
What argument did I ignore that needed to be elaborated upon further?
Everyone makes assumptions when they argue
I never claimed that they didn't, and I never claimed that making assumptions was inherently bad. But when I make an assumption, I usually attempt to clarify that that is exactly what I am doing (or I state it in the form of an opinion). I usually try to refrain from stating my assumptions as absolute facts without first indicating that they are indeed mere assumptions.
Do you think I'm trying to somehow have you put away for copyright violation or something?
Did I claim that you were?
because if you had you would have more respect for copyright
Can you prove that everyone who makes something "respects" copyright?
You haven't offered any counter argument to this
Oh? You haven't once proven that someone not respecting (or liking) copyright means that they haven't created anything. I've stated that that doesn't make any sense to me multiple times (in different ways), but there was really nothing to debunk in the first place. All I can do is ask you for further evidence.
Your original argument is that I haven't created anything, and the 'evidence' that you used to 'prove' this was the fact that I don't care for copyright. Then, when told that that doesn't prove that I haven't created anything, you just said that it was "natural" (To who? Why is it not possible for a few people, out of billions, to be different?) to want to copyright your work. None of these prove that I haven't created anything.
I agree that what is legal isn't necessarily right and what is illegal isn't necessarily wrong, but what of it?
"What of it?" That's the question that came to my mind when you were continually talking about how the courts would disagree with my opinion. What of it? How is that relevant to the issue at hand? I already know that copyright infringement is illegal in some places. Why keep bringing that up? It made me believe that you were trying to say that copyright infringement being illegal in some places indicates that it is wrong.
Are you saying that violating copyright isn't wrong?
"Isn't" wrong? No. I think that it isn't wrong. I try to refrain from stating my opinions about morality as fact (being that I don't believe in absolute morals and all).
We're simply going back to the notion that just because something isn't probable doesn't make it impossible.
any more than burglars and rapists are needed for freedom in your neighborhood.
Right, and I don't think that the way to get rid of these supposed burglars and rapists is to inconvenience innocents and start arrested people at random. I don't believe in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude because that seems to rely on the notion that humans can't abuse their power, make mistakes, or be outright corrupt.
As long as you can choose between locked down systems and non-locked down systems, I won't have too much of a problem with it. Personally, I think people should learn how to use a computer rather than relying on locked down devices to baby and 'protect' them, but it's their choice and I'm sure they don't care about my opinion.
it's perhaps better to think of copyright infringement as copying someone's numberplates.
Not that I care about that, either, but how is that the same? That's basically masquerading as someone else, and that doesn't happen with copyright infringement. As far as I know, the copyright doesn't magically transfer to the artist.
Personally? No. I merely said that making something "worth" (subjective) copyrighting does not brainwash you into believing that you must copyright it. Different people are different. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find one if you searched around.
But even if they didn't exist, it wouldn't hurt my point.
There is nothing subjective about whether something is worthy of copyright protection.
Actually, there is. I said that the word "worthy" is completely subjective.
It only helps prove that you've never created anything.
Your assumptions and guilt by associations seem to be infinite in number. Believing that the word "worthy" is subjective doesn't prove that I've never created anything.
If you're found guilty, your beliefs or opinion of the worth of the item aren't going to save you.
The same could be said about a country where it's illegal to talk bad about the government. Seriously, what is your point? You keep acting like the law dictates what is 'good' or 'bad'.
In fact, if you bother to copy something, it obviously has value to you as well, so it can't be worthless.
I didn't say that anything was "worthless." How do you keep misinterpreting me like this?
but the difference is that actions resulting from your belief are illegal in many countries.
How does that matter in the least? Are you appealing to law here? The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right, and the fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. I don't know if that's what you were saying, but it sounded like it.
its also apparent that you've never produced any work
Your assumption again. It also seems to ignore the existence of artists who do oppose copyright. It's certainly possible to both make things and be against copyright law.
worthy
That's entirely subjective.
or you would have a little more respect for it
This argument is nothing more than, "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" If you were me, you wouldn't care for copyright law. If I were you, I would probably care about copyright law.
Such logic can be applied anywhere. Even if I were to change my mind if I were in situation X (an artist creating works "worthy of copyright protection"), that doesn't mean that my current belief is somehow wrong.
but my argument is more to expand my knowledge by gaining from yours
I see.
unfortunately its now hard to believe that you are arguing against copyright for any other reason than because you admit to violating it
I never admitted to violating copyright law. I said that I didn't care for copyright law. Not the same thing.
But if that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
i guess if you were caught speeding in your car you wouldn't care much for laws against speeding either
Except that this logic can be applied to anything (aside from being a mere assumption). If you were randomly kidnapped by government agents and tortured, you might be against such practices. It really says nothing about whether or not such practices are valid or not.
were more rational
What's not rational about them? You know little about my motives, and even if you did know more about them, that wouldn't make them not rational. Even if I said that I disliked copyright law because I didn't like the sound of the word "copyright," that wouldn't make my motives irrational. There is nothing inherently irrational about emotions, and bias is probably present in everyone.
now your arguments are a bit too predictable to keep me interested.
I thought yours were predictable from the very beginning.
as i said previously, its natural for someone who is the subject of regulation to resist it.
Depends on the person.
i also never claimed that any government regulation would be perfect or "magical".
I don't see how else they could accomplish their goals. Making sure no copyrighted material is being downloaded, for instance, would be quite a task to undertake. How do you think this 'regulation' would work, and why do we need it?
you will come up with something to argue otherwise till your blue in the face
From my perspective, it looks like you'd do the same. I don't know what you believe, but I hope you at least believe there's a possibility you could be wrong.
your perceived right to violate copyright at will
You couldn't violate copyright if it didn't exist.
it also explains why much of your argument is colorful, extreme and desperate.
Not even a counterargument. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? I think it's fine to believe you're right, but I also think it's quite arrogant to act if as you cannot be wrong.
do you really think i would have any hope of convincing someone who has basically admitted to thinking that he has the right to copyright infringement that regulations in place to help prevent it would be good?
From the very beginning, did I have any hope of convincing you of anything? I don't think so.
if you made a statement like "i don't care for copyright" in a copyright infringement case, you would be laughed out of the courtroom and into your cell, and everything you claimed before and after would be moot in the same way.
Laughed out of the courtroom? Well, that's because it wouldn't matter what I think; copyright law is currently in effect. They only care about the law.
When I say that I don't care for copyright, that means that I advocate changing the law.
you're just pissy because you dropped your pants and exposed your ass.
That's your own assumption. I could assume a number of things about you, but I find it worthless and arrogant. And, "exposed"? I never once tried to hide my disagreement with copyright law. Why would I?
Whether or not you think I'm biased (and I'm sure that even you are biased in some way), my arguments could still hold truth to them. But you instead chose to attack my beliefs instead of my arguments.
since you don't care for copyright, there is no reason for you not to install pirate software and download movies
False dilemma. You act as if you either support copyright, and pay authors, or you don't, and pirate everything. Not the case. You can support the end of artificial scarcity while still paying artists. Just because you can't imagine someone doing that doesn't mean that they don't.
Also, there is another reason (and probably even more not thought of) that one wouldn't pirate software right now. It's illegal in some places. Some people (I know, I know, it's difficult to lump everyone into some big group) might prefer to take up politics and get rid of copyright law in a legal manner.
so the rest of your argument is moot
Basically, you just attacked me instead of my arguments (ad hominem). Whether or not I am one of the "criminals" your magical regulation is targeting is irrelevant. All of my arguments could still be correct.
Your argument is like saying that because someone is a hypocrite, that somehow makes their arguments incorrect.
you are the criminal being targeted by the regulation i proposed.
"Criminal" depends on which country you live in.
As I said, what does that have to do with the rest of my post? My personal beliefs are separate from that. You can't just attack my personal beliefs about copyright and then declare that every unrelated, separate point I made is invalid (if that was your intent).
You speak for everyone? And I said that they like the fact that certain regulations exist.
Unfortunately no amount of learning will help them.
Really? So learning how to download a piece of security software and learning not to open random executable files thoughtlessly wouldn't help them? In my experience, those are the main problems. People just don't know what they're doing. There's not a lot they can do about exploits except to use more secure software (try to). If I can manage not getting a single virus for years, then they probably can too.
Any need for consumers to know about virus scanners or firewalls has come about because of a lack of regulation.
Excellent. Wouldn't have it any other way. And we're not talking about regulating an industry or businesses, we're talking about regulating personal computers. Much more difficult.
This type of regulation simply isn't worth it to me. The internet and computers seem very useful for communication, and letting government 'regulate' such things merely because some people don't know how to use a computer (or might somehow be exploited) seems completely idiotic to me.
I would trust government regulation to protect me much more than multinational corporations.
I would trust neither fully. I would trust them even less if they're not just trying to regulate other businesses, but the personal use of my computer, as well. Somehow, without said government regulation, we've managed to avoid the apocalypse so far.
Regulation can't "ruin" the technology if its only purpose is to prevent you from operating it illegally.
And how exactly would it do that without severely inconveniencing everyone? Sorry, but not everyone believes that copyright infringement is a national security emergency or that it's even an issue at all. The same probably applies to viruses, and whatever other crimes can be committed using computers.
Also, "only purpose"? That's quite humorous. These are humans we're talking about. Such magical regulation will likely be abused. That likely always applies no matter what, but in this case, regulation seems almost useless and impossible.
but in what western country is it legal to download movies freely of the web?
Depends on what movies. But you said "everyone." Do you know what that word implies? Everyone on the planet. Everyone. I'd say your usage of that word was incorrect.
If by "their" you mean the RIAA (or equivalent) then I agree. However, the only alternative is regulation by government. Otherwise industry will always see a need to fill the gap.
Well, since I don't care for copyright, I'd prefer no 'regulation' at all. But even if that weren't the case, the ways the RIAA and the government go about trying to stop these supposed criminals is, in my opinion, horribly wrong. Their proposed legislature always seems to target innocents as well. There is no magical solution to end copyright infringement, and frankly, I think its effects are horribly, horribly exaggerated.
If every time I open my browser I get kiddie porn pop up everywhere because of DNS record poisoning, local infection by malware or hacking of the web server hosting my browser home page, I will stop using my browser.
Think of the children! That sounds highly unlikely. It doesn't sound like we need government regulation there, but better security (and a fix for the problem).
I'm not seeing where magical technology that magically stops (not really) people from doing illegal things would help here.
everyone will stop using the web
I highly doubt it. They'll probably just wait for it to be fixed.
You might as well be asking, "what if aliens took over the world tomorrow?" These "what if" scena
So again, they stole something they didn't have a right to
Stole what? I'm not seeing what was stolen here. What were they deprived of that they had originally? A potential opportunity for gain? I 'lose' those all the time, but I would never say that it's theft or say that I was harmed.
It looks like you're convinced that it's theft. If that's your opinion, fine. I don't think I'll be able to change it, either.
that property rights were created by human laws - was wrong
Okay. I doubt they really have property rights and courts to enforce those rights, but okay.
Since your premise was manifestly in error, why not admit that "IP" is not just a human concept?
Even if they had property 'rights' and laws to enforce those 'rights', I'm seriously going to need you to prove that they have intellectual property rights, too. Property rights ('owning' land) are not the same thing. We're talking about not being able to reproduce certain bits of information without permission from the copyright holder here.
And, as I said, it doesn't really matter if they do or don't. "Something occurring (or not occurring) in nature doesn't make it right/wrong (as far as I know). My point was that property 'rights' are just something that we (or other animals, if you believe that) created."
Even if it's 'natural', that doesn't mean that it's theft, and that doesn't mean that it's 'right'.
And that "copyright infringement" is the real artificial construct, as opposed to stealing - the taking of something that is not yours without permission?
Taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission is theft.
Back to this again? What was taken that originally belonged to someone else? A potential sale? Money that they never had to begin with? What is it?
If you take one without my permission
If I take one without your permission, it's gone. You no longer have it. But that was your book, and not some potentially (it's pretty vague) lost opportunity.
you wouldhave
Technically, I don't "have" to agree to anything.
Now, would you try to argue that you should only be held liable for the value of the paper and ink and glue, and not the entire value of the book, including the IP?
You're asking me for my opinion? Yes, I would try to argue that. The law might not agree with me, but since you seemingly asked for my opinion on the matter, yes, I would argue that.
It doesn't change the essential nature of the theft
And yet animals share w/o it being "strongest takes all".
The point is that property rights as we know them are probably an artificial construct created by the law. Other species of animals don't have legal systems (that I know of), and it doesn't even matter if they did. There is nothing (that I know of) connecting you or binding you to a specific piece of matter just because you hold it. The law (or animals' minds if that's what you want to argue) is what probably gives you your property 'rights'.
So why the big effort to deny what even a dog understands
Why are you acting like what a dog thinks is relevant? Something occurring (or not occurring) in nature doesn't make it right/wrong (as far as I know). My point was that property 'rights' are just something that we (or other animals, if you believe that) created.
Am I? I try to state it as an opinion. Example: "It does to me. In the case of copyright infringement, I see ["I"] no theft." If I've failed to do that anywhere, do go ahead and mention it. I'll attempt to correct it.
I think it should also be noted that even if I were to be a hypocrite on this specific matter, that wouldn't mean that stating your opinion (that it's/is not theft) as a fact is the 'correct' thing to do.
Am I? I try to state it as an opinion. Example: "It does to me. In the case of copyright infringement, I see ["I"] no theft." If I've failed to do that anywhere, do go ahead and mention it. I'll attempt to correct it.
denying that it actually results in loss to the party who was stolen from?
What loss? A potential loss of potential gain? Again, I wouldn't say they lost anything they already had. If someone walks past me and doesn't give me all of their belongings, I wouldn't say they stole from me. Well, that's a gain that I could have had. I guess I 'lost' that chance. But I don't think they stole from me.
[speculation] Is it too hard to just admit that you're a common thief? [/speculation].
You do not need to be a member of a specific group to defend that group (or seemingly defend it).
that's what a lot of the whining comes down to
Can you prove that?
People want it for free, but don't want to admit they're thieves.
I doubt this is really their position. They probably just disagree with you (just as you do with them).
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously this is entirely correct, as no one ever gave someone else an order or instruction.
Speech itself can't make anyone do anything. It's possible to give orders, but speech doesn't have some magical ability to control people.
For instance, if I told you to commit suicide right now, would you do it? That's what I mean. You would have to be willing to do it (for one reason or another). The speech can't 'make' you do anything. It's just a sound.
I always am amazed at you "government is the root of all evil" folks.
Where did he even say that?
How is that free speech? You're still being punished for the content of your speech. If you said "hello" and that made a group of people panic and stampede all over everyone else (for some unknown reason), injuring them, would you be held responsible? Probably not. But it was still your speech that supposedly 'made' those other people do what they did (even though it's, in my opinion, entirely their fault and speech can't make anyone do anything), even if no one ever figures out that that was the case. But what if they did figure out that that was the case? Would you be punished for the "effects" of your speech? Again, probably not.
So aren't they taking the content of your speech into account, then? Or does "intent" suddenly become a factor?
Let me know your credit card numbers.
Why would he do that? It's not the speech that I think is bad, it's how people react to it.
For what it's worth, if your credit card numbers got out there, I would say "tough luck." I'd prefer that they didn't get out because of how some people act, and it's not the speech that I think is bad, but people doing things that I think are bad.
If you can only see one extreme or the other, you miss out on all the possibilities in between.
"See"? Well, just as you can, I can think about whether or not I want such magical technology. And if it exists, I definitely don't want it in the hands of the government.
I don't want the patriot act. I don't want the TSA. I don't want free speech zones.
If you think my opinion is 'extreme', then too bad for you. That's simply my opinion.
Regulation doesn't have to be the gestapo looking over your shoulder with a cat o' nine tails.
Doesn't have to be? Well, if humans were perfect (and their morals were aligned with yours), I'm sure it wouldn't be. The fact of the matter, though, is that humans make mistakes, act maliciously, and can be outright corrupt. With a group of humans (the government), the chances of one or more of those three things happening is even greater. That's why I wouldn't give the government such overreaching powers as this.
On the same token, if you don't traffic kiddy porn on the Internet, what reason is there to object to regulation of it unless you are guilty of it?
What's with the guilt by association (a logical fallacy)? You've done this multiple times now, and it seems like the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, only even more concentrated. The fact that someone makes an argument that another group could make doesn't mean that they're part of that group.
All privacy and free speech advocates are criminals? What I have a problem with is the implementation. I do not want normal, innocent people to be harmed when trying to stop criminals. I wish to minimize that harm as much as possible.
I wouldn't doubt it if you claimed to be a troll at this point (similar to Poe's Law). You seem to accuse anyone of being against what seems to be your "the ends justify the means" mentality of being a criminal.
If regulation offers an opportunity to reduce offensive material and malware from computers and the internet, why wouldn't any typical law abiding user support it?
"Reduce"? So if it reduced it by 0.0000001% it would be worth doing, no matter what the costs?
And "offensive" is just subjective.
C'mon buddy. You gotta be smarter than that. Phishing, spam, viruses, malware, hacking, cracking, skimming, etc... there's all sorts of threats to any computer connected to the internet.
None of which I feel are big enough issues to justify such overreaching powers for the government to have.
Its common for citizens of a free country to bitch about their government and take the security and political stability for granted.
Just because something could be worse doesn't mean that your current situation is good. Even China could get worse depending on your definition of "worse." This is like saying that you can't complain when someone murders your wife because they could have murdered your daughter, too.
I don't trust any government to do many things. Not the Chinese government, and not the US government. Especially not the Chinese government. And especially when it involves technology that allows for communication (and don't assume that I agree with all of its current practices).
include responsibility to voters
Yeah, and just like consumers, voters aren't always informed. Good thing that corporations often don't control nearly everything, too. I wouldn't trust them much, either. They can't, for instance, force me to use their locked down devices. The government can, though.
So because its impossible to stop murder and rape, we should disband the police force?
Amazing straw man. You might want to reread that again (perhaps even my entire post to see where I lie on this issue).
You act like the only choices are anarchy or a fascist government
truly suck
Subjective.
And this may not come as a surprise to you, but I feel the same way about you.
Do you really expect me to believe that? How naive do you think I am?
I don't know. I guess it's nice for people to believe what you do, but I'll change my views if I begin to believe that they're wrong. That's all I meant.
You made it sound as if all that mattered was being convincing. As if facts don't matter at all. Unless you were just talking about opinions. But even then, I do not believe in saying that someone's opinion about a subjective matter is objectively wrong merely to appear 'convincing'.
Motive has a way of making someone appear a lot less convincing. a murderer will come up will all sorts of philosophical reasons as to why the death penalty is bad, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because it is obvious why a murderer wouldn't support the death penalty.
Unconvincing to who? I don't know about you, but I prefer to look at someone's arguments rather than their character before deciding whether or not their arguments are right or wrong (or whether I believe them or not). If I don't have enough information, I'll just say, "I don't know."
similiarly, its obvious why someone who doesn't care for copyright would oppose regulation intended to prevent copyright violation.
"Obvious" to who? That said, if you state it that way, it probably is likely that they would oppose it. But that does not mean that they violate copyright themselves.
Should people have the freedom to post kiddy porn on the web too?
Did I say that they should? No. I didn't say anything about it. I said that it's a fact that we must accept. Do you want to know what I believe? I believe they should go after the people who commit the crimes.
People will always die. People will always break the law. We don't need draconian regulations and laws to try to reach 'perfection' at the cost of freedom. Or, at least, I definitely don't want them.
The technological hurdles of regulation aren't actually that difficult.
Oh really? And how do we magically tell what data is copyrighted? How do we keep the government from invading people's privacy with their magical technology? Where on this planet do people have technology that can accurately distinguish between copyrighted data and non-copyrighted data (kiddie porn, etc)? Tell me exactly how such a thing would be implemented, without any inconveniences to innocents, and without a large potential for governmental abuse.
Where is the need for this? Where? I don't see it. Will the apocalypse come about if we don't implement this magical technology?
You apparently aren't much of a programmer either. There are plenty of websites in China.
For one thing, you don't have to be a programmer to know that there are plenty of websites in China.
Second of all, yes, there are plenty of websites and developers in China. But they haven't implemented the magical technology that you seem to be advocating. If you take a walled-garden style approach to computing, does it not make sense that it would be more difficult to create and release software (and generally tinker with everything)? If it's not, then what is the 'regulation' doing?
Third of all, why do you keep using China in your examples? Even their "great firewall" can be bypassed if you know what you're doing (and, admittedly, many people appear to be ignorant). And China isn't exactly a bastion of freedom, is it? That technology just allows them to abuse their citizens even more. That is exactly what I mean.
What do you think "tinkerers" in China can't do that you are free to do at the moment?
Where has China implemented such a thing on a national level in every computer? We were talking about your new censorship technology, right? How would walled-garden style computing 'protect' anyone if everything was completely open and free? Well, lik
Additionally, for what reason do we need such 'regulation'? Do you see a staggering need for it? What's wrong with how things are now? There are completely open computers, and there are walled gardens. You can choose which you want. What is wrong with this? Somehow, everything seems to be working with relatively minor problems. The apocalypse is not yet upon us.
So tell me, why do governments, known for their abuses of power (not unlike corporations), suddenly need to 'regulate' computers and make everything a walled garden (if that's even what you're saying)? Where is the need for this? The risks seem too great to me. I mean risks to free speech, to privacy, the fact that only they would have an idea of how they implemented such technology, etc.
I don't trust the government to do many things at all. I especially don't trust them around speech, and I think it's an awfully slippery slope to suggest that they need to regulate something that has such great potential for communication, among other things (such as developing software and various hobbies).
I simply do not see the need. Because someone might look at kiddie porn? So? Because someone might infringe upon copyright? So? Because someone might get hacked? So? All of those things happen, will continue to happen, and would likely happen no matter what. No system is perfect, and after thinking about the disadvantages to government sanctioned walled garden computing, I can only reject such a notion. As I said, I see no pressing need for such draconian regulations.
Oh wow you are a philosopher aren't you... stuck in a world of "what ifs".
I didn't see where I asked that many "what if" type questions.
Umm, gee, let me think... the fact that there are laws to help those people wouldn't by any chance imply that its a reasonably popular notion?
That proves that anyone who creates anything must respect copyright? "Popular" does not equate to "all." I never said that it wasn't a popular notion, so I don't know why, in this sentence, you acted as if that was the argument all along (which is what it seemed like).
No, not everyone, but that would also be obviously impossible to prove.
I think so, too.
Argument isn't about what is fact.
All I care about is fact. You can try to be as convincing as you want, but I will attempt to question everything that you say. You offered no real evidence, so I did not and still do not believe you. You might want to try such tactics on people who don't often question what others say.
You're not real good at this argument thing are you.
I suppose not. I'm not very interested in just saying things to convince others; I'm more interested in fact. I find the former to be completely idiotic (especially when they know what they're saying isn't true).
So what are you hoping to achieve from this conversation?
What are you hoping to achieve? The only reason I bother posting comments is for my own entertainment.
prove that I'm wrong or that you're right?
Given the arguments present, that seems like it would be quite difficult. They're simply too vague and seemingly nearly impossible to prove. Just as you probably can't prove that no artist on Earth dislikes copyright, I probably can't prove that one of them really doesn't like copyright (Who knows if they really don't?).
I think that regulation of personal computing wouldn't be bad because it would at least attempt to help protect users from questionable stuff (malware, kiddy porn, hacking, phishing, etc) that is difficult to protect against otherwise, and it would reduce the need for corporate-imposed DRM.
There is no "need" for corporate-imposed DRM. I don't use things that "need" it. If people want such 'protections', I think they should have that choice. I don't want it because it signifies a loss of freedom.
Tell me this: how would they implement such a thing? No, really. Tell me about this magical technology that will stop all illegal activity on personal computers without severely raising the bar for entry for developers and tinkerers (thereby potentially making less software and websites available). I've asked you how such a thing would be implemented multiple times, but I've yet to receive an answer (as far as I remember).
You disagree with regulation merely because it would hinder you from using your computer to engage in illegal activity
Can you read minds? Can you prove that that's my motive? Can you even prove that I actually engage in illegal activity (Hint: Being against copyright doesn't mean that someone is a copyright infringer.)? I'm starting to think that you really don't care about facts. You might, but at this point, I doubt it. The number of unproven assertions that you state as fact is seemingly staggering.
but your opinion is based on motive
And whose isn't? Surely you have a motive?
rather than reason (like a murderer opposing the death penalty).
You must be defining "reason" as "anything that I personally like." There is nothing inherently illogical about a murderer opposing the death penalty, and their arguments aren't necessarily wrong (which we've been through already). Just because you think someone is biased, that doesn't mean that their argum
Why would I bother going to any trouble to prove your point?
Did I tell you that you had to? Why would I bother going through the trouble of searching for something that I don't even care about? Whether they exist or not, my point remains.
You seem so fixated on the fact that I'm making assumptions
And stating them as facts. Here, let me demonstrate: "It only helps prove[...]"
I suppose that's not a mere assumption, but a statement of a fact.
justified on my part
"Justified"? According to who is it "justified"? That's subjective.
that you completely ignore the arguments I make that include assumptions
What argument did I ignore that needed to be elaborated upon further?
Everyone makes assumptions when they argue
I never claimed that they didn't, and I never claimed that making assumptions was inherently bad. But when I make an assumption, I usually attempt to clarify that that is exactly what I am doing (or I state it in the form of an opinion). I usually try to refrain from stating my assumptions as absolute facts without first indicating that they are indeed mere assumptions.
Do you think I'm trying to somehow have you put away for copyright violation or something?
Did I claim that you were?
because if you had you would have more respect for copyright
Can you prove that everyone who makes something "respects" copyright?
You haven't offered any counter argument to this
Oh? You haven't once proven that someone not respecting (or liking) copyright means that they haven't created anything. I've stated that that doesn't make any sense to me multiple times (in different ways), but there was really nothing to debunk in the first place. All I can do is ask you for further evidence.
Your original argument is that I haven't created anything, and the 'evidence' that you used to 'prove' this was the fact that I don't care for copyright. Then, when told that that doesn't prove that I haven't created anything, you just said that it was "natural" (To who? Why is it not possible for a few people, out of billions, to be different?) to want to copyright your work. None of these prove that I haven't created anything.
I agree that what is legal isn't necessarily right and what is illegal isn't necessarily wrong, but what of it?
"What of it?" That's the question that came to my mind when you were continually talking about how the courts would disagree with my opinion. What of it? How is that relevant to the issue at hand? I already know that copyright infringement is illegal in some places. Why keep bringing that up? It made me believe that you were trying to say that copyright infringement being illegal in some places indicates that it is wrong.
Are you saying that violating copyright isn't wrong?
"Isn't" wrong? No. I think that it isn't wrong. I try to refrain from stating my opinions about morality as fact (being that I don't believe in absolute morals and all).
We're simply going back to the notion that just because something isn't probable doesn't make it impossible.
How probable it is is so far unknown.
any more than burglars and rapists are needed for freedom in your neighborhood.
Right, and I don't think that the way to get rid of these supposed burglars and rapists is to inconvenience innocents and start arrested people at random. I don't believe in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude because that seems to rely on the notion that humans can't abuse their power, make mistakes, or be outright corrupt.
As long as you can choose between locked down systems and non-locked down systems, I won't have too much of a problem with it. Personally, I think people should learn how to use a computer rather than relying on locked down devices to baby and 'protect' them, but it's their choice and I'm sure they don't care about my opinion.
it's perhaps better to think of copyright infringement as copying someone's numberplates.
Not that I care about that, either, but how is that the same? That's basically masquerading as someone else, and that doesn't happen with copyright infringement. As far as I know, the copyright doesn't magically transfer to the artist.
Do you know any artists that oppose copyright?
Personally? No. I merely said that making something "worth" (subjective) copyrighting does not brainwash you into believing that you must copyright it. Different people are different. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find one if you searched around.
But even if they didn't exist, it wouldn't hurt my point.
There is nothing subjective about whether something is worthy of copyright protection.
Actually, there is. I said that the word "worthy" is completely subjective.
It only helps prove that you've never created anything.
Your assumptions and guilt by associations seem to be infinite in number. Believing that the word "worthy" is subjective doesn't prove that I've never created anything.
If you're found guilty, your beliefs or opinion of the worth of the item aren't going to save you.
The same could be said about a country where it's illegal to talk bad about the government. Seriously, what is your point? You keep acting like the law dictates what is 'good' or 'bad'.
In fact, if you bother to copy something, it obviously has value to you as well, so it can't be worthless.
I didn't say that anything was "worthless." How do you keep misinterpreting me like this?
but the difference is that actions resulting from your belief are illegal in many countries.
How does that matter in the least? Are you appealing to law here? The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right, and the fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. I don't know if that's what you were saying, but it sounded like it.
its also apparent that you've never produced any work
Your assumption again. It also seems to ignore the existence of artists who do oppose copyright. It's certainly possible to both make things and be against copyright law.
worthy
That's entirely subjective.
or you would have a little more respect for it
This argument is nothing more than, "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" If you were me, you wouldn't care for copyright law. If I were you, I would probably care about copyright law.
Such logic can be applied anywhere. Even if I were to change my mind if I were in situation X (an artist creating works "worthy of copyright protection"), that doesn't mean that my current belief is somehow wrong.
but my argument is more to expand my knowledge by gaining from yours
I see.
unfortunately its now hard to believe that you are arguing against copyright for any other reason than because you admit to violating it
I never admitted to violating copyright law. I said that I didn't care for copyright law. Not the same thing.
But if that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
i guess if you were caught speeding in your car you wouldn't care much for laws against speeding either
Except that this logic can be applied to anything (aside from being a mere assumption). If you were randomly kidnapped by government agents and tortured, you might be against such practices. It really says nothing about whether or not such practices are valid or not.
were more rational
What's not rational about them? You know little about my motives, and even if you did know more about them, that wouldn't make them not rational. Even if I said that I disliked copyright law because I didn't like the sound of the word "copyright," that wouldn't make my motives irrational. There is nothing inherently irrational about emotions, and bias is probably present in everyone.
now your arguments are a bit too predictable to keep me interested.
I thought yours were predictable from the very beginning.
as i said previously, its natural for someone who is the subject of regulation to resist it.
Depends on the person.
i also never claimed that any government regulation would be perfect or "magical".
I don't see how else they could accomplish their goals. Making sure no copyrighted material is being downloaded, for instance, would be quite a task to undertake. How do you think this 'regulation' would work, and why do we need it?
you will come up with something to argue otherwise till your blue in the face
From my perspective, it looks like you'd do the same. I don't know what you believe, but I hope you at least believe there's a possibility you could be wrong.
your perceived right to violate copyright at will
You couldn't violate copyright if it didn't exist.
it also explains why much of your argument is colorful, extreme and desperate.
Not even a counterargument. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? I think it's fine to believe you're right, but I also think it's quite arrogant to act if as you cannot be wrong.
do you really think i would have any hope of convincing someone who has basically admitted to thinking that he has the right to copyright infringement that regulations in place to help prevent it would be good?
From the very beginning, did I have any hope of convincing you of anything? I don't think so.
if you made a statement like "i don't care for copyright" in a copyright infringement case, you would be laughed out of the courtroom and into your cell, and everything you claimed before and after would be moot in the same way.
Laughed out of the courtroom? Well, that's because it wouldn't matter what I think; copyright law is currently in effect. They only care about the law.
When I say that I don't care for copyright, that means that I advocate changing the law.
you're just pissy because you dropped your pants and exposed your ass.
That's your own assumption. I could assume a number of things about you, but I find it worthless and arrogant. And, "exposed"? I never once tried to hide my disagreement with copyright law. Why would I?
Whether or not you think I'm biased (and I'm sure that even you are biased in some way), my arguments could still hold truth to them. But you instead chose to attack my beliefs instead of my arguments.
since you don't care for copyright, there is no reason for you not to install pirate software and download movies
False dilemma. You act as if you either support copyright, and pay authors, or you don't, and pirate everything. Not the case. You can support the end of artificial scarcity while still paying artists. Just because you can't imagine someone doing that doesn't mean that they don't.
Also, there is another reason (and probably even more not thought of) that one wouldn't pirate software right now. It's illegal in some places. Some people (I know, I know, it's difficult to lump everyone into some big group) might prefer to take up politics and get rid of copyright law in a legal manner.
so the rest of your argument is moot
Basically, you just attacked me instead of my arguments (ad hominem). Whether or not I am one of the "criminals" your magical regulation is targeting is irrelevant. All of my arguments could still be correct.
Your argument is like saying that because someone is a hypocrite, that somehow makes their arguments incorrect.
you are the criminal being targeted by the regulation i proposed.
"Criminal" depends on which country you live in.
As I said, what does that have to do with the rest of my post? My personal beliefs are separate from that. You can't just attack my personal beliefs about copyright and then declare that every unrelated, separate point I made is invalid (if that was your intent).
What does that have to do with the rest of the post?
Nobody "likes" to be regulated.
You speak for everyone? And I said that they like the fact that certain regulations exist.
Unfortunately no amount of learning will help them.
Really? So learning how to download a piece of security software and learning not to open random executable files thoughtlessly wouldn't help them? In my experience, those are the main problems. People just don't know what they're doing. There's not a lot they can do about exploits except to use more secure software (try to). If I can manage not getting a single virus for years, then they probably can too.
Any need for consumers to know about virus scanners or firewalls has come about because of a lack of regulation.
Excellent. Wouldn't have it any other way. And we're not talking about regulating an industry or businesses, we're talking about regulating personal computers. Much more difficult.
This type of regulation simply isn't worth it to me. The internet and computers seem very useful for communication, and letting government 'regulate' such things merely because some people don't know how to use a computer (or might somehow be exploited) seems completely idiotic to me.
I would trust government regulation to protect me much more than multinational corporations.
I would trust neither fully. I would trust them even less if they're not just trying to regulate other businesses, but the personal use of my computer, as well. Somehow, without said government regulation, we've managed to avoid the apocalypse so far.
Regulation can't "ruin" the technology if its only purpose is to prevent you from operating it illegally.
And how exactly would it do that without severely inconveniencing everyone? Sorry, but not everyone believes that copyright infringement is a national security emergency or that it's even an issue at all. The same probably applies to viruses, and whatever other crimes can be committed using computers.
Also, "only purpose"? That's quite humorous. These are humans we're talking about. Such magical regulation will likely be abused. That likely always applies no matter what, but in this case, regulation seems almost useless and impossible.
but in what western country is it legal to download movies freely of the web?
Depends on what movies. But you said "everyone." Do you know what that word implies? Everyone on the planet. Everyone. I'd say your usage of that word was incorrect.
If by "their" you mean the RIAA (or equivalent) then I agree. However, the only alternative is regulation by government. Otherwise industry will always see a need to fill the gap.
Well, since I don't care for copyright, I'd prefer no 'regulation' at all. But even if that weren't the case, the ways the RIAA and the government go about trying to stop these supposed criminals is, in my opinion, horribly wrong. Their proposed legislature always seems to target innocents as well. There is no magical solution to end copyright infringement, and frankly, I think its effects are horribly, horribly exaggerated.
If every time I open my browser I get kiddie porn pop up everywhere because of DNS record poisoning, local infection by malware or hacking of the web server hosting my browser home page, I will stop using my browser.
Think of the children! That sounds highly unlikely. It doesn't sound like we need government regulation there, but better security (and a fix for the problem).
I'm not seeing where magical technology that magically stops (not really) people from doing illegal things would help here.
everyone will stop using the web
I highly doubt it. They'll probably just wait for it to be fixed.
You might as well be asking, "what if aliens took over the world tomorrow?" These "what if" scena
So again, they stole something they didn't have a right to
Stole what? I'm not seeing what was stolen here. What were they deprived of that they had originally? A potential opportunity for gain? I 'lose' those all the time, but I would never say that it's theft or say that I was harmed.
It looks like you're convinced that it's theft. If that's your opinion, fine. I don't think I'll be able to change it, either.
that property rights were created by human laws - was wrong
Okay. I doubt they really have property rights and courts to enforce those rights, but okay.
Since your premise was manifestly in error, why not admit that "IP" is not just a human concept?
Even if they had property 'rights' and laws to enforce those 'rights', I'm seriously going to need you to prove that they have intellectual property rights, too. Property rights ('owning' land) are not the same thing. We're talking about not being able to reproduce certain bits of information without permission from the copyright holder here.
And, as I said, it doesn't really matter if they do or don't. "Something occurring (or not occurring) in nature doesn't make it right/wrong (as far as I know). My point was that property 'rights' are just something that we (or other animals, if you believe that) created."
Even if it's 'natural', that doesn't mean that it's theft, and that doesn't mean that it's 'right'.
And that "copyright infringement" is the real artificial construct, as opposed to stealing - the taking of something that is not yours without permission?
The taking of... what?
Taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission is theft.
Back to this again? What was taken that originally belonged to someone else? A potential sale? Money that they never had to begin with? What is it?
If you take one without my permission
If I take one without your permission, it's gone. You no longer have it. But that was your book, and not some potentially (it's pretty vague) lost opportunity.
you wouldhave
Technically, I don't "have" to agree to anything.
Now, would you try to argue that you should only be held liable for the value of the paper and ink and glue, and not the entire value of the book, including the IP?
You're asking me for my opinion? Yes, I would try to argue that. The law might not agree with me, but since you seemingly asked for my opinion on the matter, yes, I would argue that.
It doesn't change the essential nature of the theft
I believe it does when you copy it.
And yet animals share w/o it being "strongest takes all".
The point is that property rights as we know them are probably an artificial construct created by the law. Other species of animals don't have legal systems (that I know of), and it doesn't even matter if they did. There is nothing (that I know of) connecting you or binding you to a specific piece of matter just because you hold it. The law (or animals' minds if that's what you want to argue) is what probably gives you your property 'rights'.
So why the big effort to deny what even a dog understands
Why are you acting like what a dog thinks is relevant? Something occurring (or not occurring) in nature doesn't make it right/wrong (as far as I know). My point was that property 'rights' are just something that we (or other animals, if you believe that) created.
Am I? I try to state it as an opinion. Example: "It does to me. In the case of copyright infringement, I see ["I"] no theft." If I've failed to do that anywhere, do go ahead and mention it. I'll attempt to correct it.
I think it should also be noted that even if I were to be a hypocrite on this specific matter, that wouldn't mean that stating your opinion (that it's/is not theft) as a fact is the 'correct' thing to do.
stating your opinion as fact?
Am I? I try to state it as an opinion. Example: "It does to me. In the case of copyright infringement, I see ["I"] no theft." If I've failed to do that anywhere, do go ahead and mention it. I'll attempt to correct it.
denying that it actually results in loss to the party who was stolen from?
What loss? A potential loss of potential gain? Again, I wouldn't say they lost anything they already had. If someone walks past me and doesn't give me all of their belongings, I wouldn't say they stole from me. Well, that's a gain that I could have had. I guess I 'lost' that chance. But I don't think they stole from me.
[speculation] Is it too hard to just admit that you're a common thief? [/speculation].
You do not need to be a member of a specific group to defend that group (or seemingly defend it).
that's what a lot of the whining comes down to
Can you prove that?
People want it for free, but don't want to admit they're thieves.
I doubt this is really their position. They probably just disagree with you (just as you do with them).