It is completely the fault of "pirates" that DRM is ever used in the first place. The people who actually implement the DRM? They had nothing to do with it! It's entirely the fault of the pirates that customers are being inconvenienced by DRM that doesn't even stop the pirates!
Why? I don't really understand banning someone from playing online games (if cheating is that easy, then something is wrong, in my opinion), either, but why block them from accessing everything else? With playing an online game with a custom firemware, you might cheat (and, in my opinion, they should just ban people they've found to be cheaters rather than ban everyone with custom firmware), but what could you do with those other things (maybe I misinterpreted you) that could be deemed as 'harmful'?
But... what if someone is able to pirate something!? The fact that some artist may or may not have lost potential profit will bring about the apocalypse!
What are you saying? There's all kinds of good reasons for this. Like, uh... think of the children! Yeah, that's it. And the terrorists, too! What about people infringing upon the copyright of others (the most serious crime of all)?
Not that I'm against trying to convince other people to vote your way, but that likely isn't realistic for a few people to do in one (or even a few) elections. I think there's a point when you've done enough, and it's hard for me to blame them for poor politicians.
Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech.
Right. And with false advertising, they're punishing you because they didn't like the contents of your speech. Same with most of the other crimes.
According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
It should be, in my opinion. Until you pull out a gun and point it at someone or actually commit the crime, I see no problem.
But, as I said, if people don't like that, then amend the constitution.
Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
Then I guess that just means that more actions that are illegal should not be illegal (in my opinion). Until they amend the constitution, that is.
The problem I have is that the constitution states no such limitations. It doesn't seem to draw any lines (unless the text is invisible). As I said, if they don't like that, then they should amend the constitution. If the issue is really so pressing, it shouldn't be as difficult as that usually is.
The problem with this approach is that it would also invalidate all slander and libel laws on the books
Excellent. Then it would work as intended. If they want those laws, then they need to amend the constitution to clarify that freedom of speech has limitations. They can't just do whatever they want, and I don't think we should let them.
And those laws date all the way back to when Constitution was actually written
Sounds like they were violating their own rules, then. All I care about is what the constitution says.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It seems to me like that's what it essentially comes down to. Or, at least, that's what I think the name implies.
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
The "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently" argument? That doesn't mean that the way I feel now is 'wrong.' In fact, it's completely irrelevant. That argument could be used against anyone.
I value absolute freedom of speech.
It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins".
As long as it remains speech, none of your rights have been infringed upon. None of the rights that I care about, anyway.
which are not protected by the first amendment
No such thing exists. The first amendment lists no exceptions to freedom of speech. As I said, if you do not like that, then amend the constitution. I think that's better than simply pretending that there are things in the constitution that aren't there.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
Because it is. One of my rights (to say that) is not present.
But I also care about other people's rights (just as I hope they care about mine). I might not agree with them, but I'm not willing to ban the speech just because some people find it offensive.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
There is no right to not be offended. They should, in my opinion, take action when something has been/is about to be done.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights.
Threatening someone has no such effect. Actually stopping them from assembling would have such an effect.
Too many people with thin skin, in my opinion. They can vanish for all I care.
But my comment wasn't about that at all. It was about invisible exceptions in the constitution. It was about the fact that they just ignore it entirely rather than amend it. If something is important (or deemed so by a majority and by the government), then it should be a much easier task.
Supporters of the various hate speech laws and are quick to point out the freedom of speech has its limits.
That never made sense to me. The constitution states no such limitation. If you don't like that, then wouldn't the proper thing to do be to amend the constitution? Same for anything else. Rather than following the proper procedures, they seem to just create invisible exceptions and/or interpret it as they like.
Exactly. "Fraud." I wouldn't say that you stole from the other customers.
Although, please enlighten me: how does this work for music, games, movies, and software? Your car example causes other people to lose many through your own actions, but how does it apply to a pirate who just listens to the music? They've done nothing that has affected the artist. They haven't crashed a car. They're separated from the artist.
Also, answer this: "When someone walks past me on the sidewalk and doesn't give me all of their possessions, I don't call that theft. Sure, it's not a law that they have to, but that is irrelevant to my point. It's a loss of potential gain. I could have had all of their possessions of they would have given them to me. Yet, I wouldn't call that theft. I've lost nothing beyond the ability to believe that they would give me all of their possessions."
You are receiving benefit that you are not entitled to
Quite irrelevant unless you're directly using up resources. The artist's decisions are his/her own. The only way I could see your example being relevant is if, say, a pirate connected to a game server. He's using up a tiny bit of the server's resources and taking up space in the server.
You do not have a right to derive benefit from that work without paying the cost.
A pirate might reply to this with: "That's the law right now. But I would like to have it and will do everything in my power to get it." Or something such as that.
Also, not everywhere is copyright infringement illegal (or at least criminal).
Would you consider it stealing to bail on a hotel bill because they have vacancy and you clean up after yourself? You did not cost them anything and you did not prevent anyone else from using the room. What about sneaking into a movie theater that's not full? The fact is you are deriving benefit while providing nothing in return and you are not entitled to do so.
I wouldn't consider any of those things stealing in the situations that you described.
It sounds like money is still necessary. I wouldn't call that a "utopia."
and permanently deprived 10 people of property.
What did they own that they no longer have access to?
When you buy a car, you are paying for the labor and time of people who molded dirt into a car.
That's completely irrelevant. When you steal a car, someone loses something (the car). When you download something, no one loses anything that I am aware of. Not time, money, or anything else, from what I see. Well, the artists might lose hypothetical profit, but I certainly wouldn't call that theft.
When someone walks past me on the sidewalk and doesn't give me all of their possessions, I don't call that theft. Sure, it's not a law that they have to, but that is irrelevant to my point. It's a loss of potential gain. I could have had all of their possessions of they would have given them to me. Yet, I wouldn't call that theft. I've lost nothing beyond the ability to believe that they would give me all of their possessions.
I should add, that criminals, always have a justification for their actions.
So do people who don't believe that they're "criminals." I see the words "justification" quite a bit, as if it is a bad thing. But why are justifications necessary (they really aren't)? Perhaps people are just looking for a debate. Perhaps they want to convince other people to believe as they do. It doesn't mean that they believe what they're doing is 'wrong' or 'damaging'.
And keep in mind that copyright infringement isn't illegal everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see him say that. Either way, "bad" is subjective.
but if you hate the place so much go live in a *real* police state.
"If it could be worse, then the current situation is objectively good..."
It is completely the fault of "pirates" that DRM is ever used in the first place. The people who actually implement the DRM? They had nothing to do with it! It's entirely the fault of the pirates that customers are being inconvenienced by DRM that doesn't even stop the pirates!
when you 'Bought it' you could make copy's and sell it legally.
I... don't really have a problem with this.
should
Why? I don't really understand banning someone from playing online games (if cheating is that easy, then something is wrong, in my opinion), either, but why block them from accessing everything else? With playing an online game with a custom firemware, you might cheat (and, in my opinion, they should just ban people they've found to be cheaters rather than ban everyone with custom firmware), but what could you do with those other things (maybe I misinterpreted you) that could be deemed as 'harmful'?
Design tests that challenge understanding of the subject and reasoning, not memory.
But that's such a pain! "Test and forget" is so much more simple!
But... what if someone is able to pirate something!? The fact that some artist may or may not have lost potential profit will bring about the apocalypse!
Therefore, paying customers must suffer.
What are you saying? There's all kinds of good reasons for this. Like, uh... think of the children! Yeah, that's it. And the terrorists, too! What about people infringing upon the copyright of others (the most serious crime of all)?
Not that I'm against trying to convince other people to vote your way, but that likely isn't realistic for a few people to do in one (or even a few) elections. I think there's a point when you've done enough, and it's hard for me to blame them for poor politicians.
You're a nothingness ultimatum.
Now why people are still using IE is beyond me.
Opinions.
You and your neighbors elected people
But what if you didn't?
Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech.
Right. And with false advertising, they're punishing you because they didn't like the contents of your speech. Same with most of the other crimes.
According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
It should be, in my opinion. Until you pull out a gun and point it at someone or actually commit the crime, I see no problem.
But, as I said, if people don't like that, then amend the constitution.
Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
Then I guess that just means that more actions that are illegal should not be illegal (in my opinion). Until they amend the constitution, that is.
But I'm curious what you think "speech" means?
Speaking? Writing (perhaps expression)?
If you lie in an advertisement, that's still speech. Slander is speech. Plotting to commit a crime is likely some form of speech or expression.
As I said, if the issue is so pressing, then they should amend the constitution instead of outright ignoring it.
The problem I have is that the constitution states no such limitations. It doesn't seem to draw any lines (unless the text is invisible). As I said, if they don't like that, then they should amend the constitution. If the issue is really so pressing, it shouldn't be as difficult as that usually is.
It's funny because they probably actually think they're saving it by seizing a domain name. Or that the website was actually a threat to anything.
The problem with this approach is that it would also invalidate all slander and libel laws on the books
Excellent. Then it would work as intended. If they want those laws, then they need to amend the constitution to clarify that freedom of speech has limitations. They can't just do whatever they want, and I don't think we should let them.
And those laws date all the way back to when Constitution was actually written
Sounds like they were violating their own rules, then. All I care about is what the constitution says.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It seems to me like that's what it essentially comes down to. Or, at least, that's what I think the name implies.
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
The "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently" argument? That doesn't mean that the way I feel now is 'wrong.' In fact, it's completely irrelevant. That argument could be used against anyone.
I value absolute freedom of speech.
It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins".
As long as it remains speech, none of your rights have been infringed upon. None of the rights that I care about, anyway.
which are not protected by the first amendment
No such thing exists. The first amendment lists no exceptions to freedom of speech. As I said, if you do not like that, then amend the constitution. I think that's better than simply pretending that there are things in the constitution that aren't there.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
Because it is. One of my rights (to say that) is not present.
But I also care about other people's rights (just as I hope they care about mine). I might not agree with them, but I'm not willing to ban the speech just because some people find it offensive.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
There is no right to not be offended. They should, in my opinion, take action when something has been/is about to be done.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights.
Threatening someone has no such effect. Actually stopping them from assembling would have such an effect.
Too many people with thin skin, in my opinion. They can vanish for all I care.
But my comment wasn't about that at all. It was about invisible exceptions in the constitution. It was about the fact that they just ignore it entirely rather than amend it. If something is important (or deemed so by a majority and by the government), then it should be a much easier task.
Supporters of the various hate speech laws and are quick to point out the freedom of speech has its limits.
That never made sense to me. The constitution states no such limitation. If you don't like that, then wouldn't the proper thing to do be to amend the constitution? Same for anything else. Rather than following the proper procedures, they seem to just create invisible exceptions and/or interpret it as they like.
You just committed fraud
Exactly. "Fraud." I wouldn't say that you stole from the other customers.
Although, please enlighten me: how does this work for music, games, movies, and software? Your car example causes other people to lose many through your own actions, but how does it apply to a pirate who just listens to the music? They've done nothing that has affected the artist. They haven't crashed a car. They're separated from the artist.
Also, answer this: "When someone walks past me on the sidewalk and doesn't give me all of their possessions, I don't call that theft. Sure, it's not a law that they have to, but that is irrelevant to my point. It's a loss of potential gain. I could have had all of their possessions of they would have given them to me. Yet, I wouldn't call that theft. I've lost nothing beyond the ability to believe that they would give me all of their possessions."
You are receiving benefit that you are not entitled to
Quite irrelevant unless you're directly using up resources. The artist's decisions are his/her own. The only way I could see your example being relevant is if, say, a pirate connected to a game server. He's using up a tiny bit of the server's resources and taking up space in the server.
So you're saying that you're 100% right and that your arguments can't be debated? I have a word for that: "arrogant."
I believe I'm correct, too. I don't think that I can't be wrong, though. Where has that gotten you?
but the cost to produce the first copy is not.
Not the pirate's fault.
You do not have a right to derive benefit from that work without paying the cost.
A pirate might reply to this with: "That's the law right now. But I would like to have it and will do everything in my power to get it." Or something such as that.
Also, not everywhere is copyright infringement illegal (or at least criminal).
Would you consider it stealing to bail on a hotel bill because they have vacancy and you clean up after yourself? You did not cost them anything and you did not prevent anyone else from using the room. What about sneaking into a movie theater that's not full? The fact is you are deriving benefit while providing nothing in return and you are not entitled to do so.
I wouldn't consider any of those things stealing in the situations that you described.
the world is utopia.
It sounds like money is still necessary. I wouldn't call that a "utopia."
and permanently deprived 10 people of property.
What did they own that they no longer have access to?
When you buy a car, you are paying for the labor and time of people who molded dirt into a car.
That's completely irrelevant. When you steal a car, someone loses something (the car). When you download something, no one loses anything that I am aware of. Not time, money, or anything else, from what I see. Well, the artists might lose hypothetical profit, but I certainly wouldn't call that theft.
When someone walks past me on the sidewalk and doesn't give me all of their possessions, I don't call that theft. Sure, it's not a law that they have to, but that is irrelevant to my point. It's a loss of potential gain. I could have had all of their possessions of they would have given them to me. Yet, I wouldn't call that theft. I've lost nothing beyond the ability to believe that they would give me all of their possessions.
I should add, that criminals, always have a justification for their actions.
So do people who don't believe that they're "criminals." I see the words "justification" quite a bit, as if it is a bad thing. But why are justifications necessary (they really aren't)? Perhaps people are just looking for a debate. Perhaps they want to convince other people to believe as they do. It doesn't mean that they believe what they're doing is 'wrong' or 'damaging'.
And keep in mind that copyright infringement isn't illegal everywhere.