So it's infringing upon an idea that they have in their head (that they should be the only ones allowed to distribute the product)? Now, it may be a law, but that's still what is seemingly happening.
Even if they did lose that right (which they didn't, since no one else has the right in the first place), I still wouldn't call it theft. I wouldn't call the inability to believe something because of the actions of another individual "theft."
When you hire a painter, there's a contract. Copyright holders had a contract with ALL OF US. When one of us violates that contract it is indeed very much like not paying the painter.
The thing that I think is wrong with this analogy is that in one situation, someone is being asked by a party to complete a job and then not getting paid, and then in the other situation, no such thing is happening. They start the job and complete it without any interaction with the pirate.
All of us? Irrelevant. The pirate didn't give them any job.
You are permanently depriving them of the time it took to produce the software
No, you aren't. They already used that time, and of their own volition. The pirate had nothing to do with that.
and their right to get paid for producing the software.
How does that work? They still very much have that right. You haven't taken it from them. Someone else can still buy the software.
Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done.
Except, in that case, you've asked them to paint your house (asked them to do a job), and then not paid them. You've actually hurt (depending on how you define "hurt") them by directly wasting their time. Pirates are not people who ask artists to do jobs and then don't pay them. The artist takes the job of their own volition and the pirate has nothing to do with that (they're just potential customers).
Besides, if you can't trust the judges in a common law system to apply the test in a just and equitable manner, then you have bigger problems than defamation law.
What is "just"? That's subjective, too. The fact that you disagree with a judge's decision doesn't mean that his decision wasn't "just."
I don't think this is true. I bought a video card for under $100 about 2-3 years ago, and it can play Skyrim just fine on high settings (with minimal lag). I might not be able to crank every setting up to the highest it can go, but I can easily play it on high settings. I was surprised at how far merely upgrading certain PC parts can get you.
The world is irrelevant to whether or not they can 'justify' (none is needed) their actions.
But I do feel that it's technically incorrect. Yes, language evolves, but that doesn't mean that I'd support the word "murder" meaning the same thing as "theft." It's simply confusing and may give people the wrong idea about what is happening.
And I don't feel that the word 'pirate' is as misleading (although it still might be).
It's not "pedantic" to me. I apparently feel that being technically correct is important.
But, in addition to that, it could make people get the wrong idea about what copyright infringement really is. Other times, using such words could make people who know what it is outright dismiss you from the very beginning.
Because in the absence of a philosophic or religious grounding, you are either left with subjective morality where everyone determines what is right for them;
That's not even what I meant. He stated that something was wrong (or, at least, he mentioned the word), so I said that that's not necessarily the case. Life as we know it goes on. The laws stay the same.
Really, all I meant to imply was that it wasn't necessarily absolutely wrong (not that he said that it was).
NO rational basis
There's nothing inherently irrational about emotions. Certainly, they can sometimes lead someone to use logical fallacies and such, but they aren't inherently irrational.
and if you dont understand THAT
I don't see where I said that that wasn't the case. Although I do think that "strong" is subjective.
It can also be done for little purpose other than to shift attention away from the actual topic.
No, because you can debate more than one point at a time. And the exact same thing could be said about people claiming that it's theft. If someone says something that I feel is technically incorrect, then I will probably attempt to correct them. If they don't want that, then they can try to avoid saying things that I think are technically incorrect. And if they don't wish to do that, they could always not comment at all. Or just deal with the replies.
I understand what you're getting at, but it's pure pedantic sophistry.
It's not pedantic to me.
In my case, you gained my music
And? From what I saw, he was talking about people who receive money by selling copyrighted goods. Then you claimed that pirates profit. I interpreted that as meaning that pirates somehow receive money whenever they download a copyrighted good. But maybe I just misinterpreted you.
representing a huge investment of time and money on my part, and I lost something - that investment that I made.
You already spent the time and money to make the goods. No matter what the pirate does, I don't see how they could possibly take something that you've already lost.
And it isn't the pirate that incurred those losses upon you. You did that of your own volition (something that they likely had absolutely no part in). I don't disagree that some (the exact number is something I am unsure of) cause a loss of potential profit.
At best that's debatable. At worst, it's amoral, narcissistic, and verging on sociopathic.
That was actually sarcasm. I've seen the "it could be worse" arguments quite a bit. And while it is possible to feel good because the worst hasn't happened yet, I doubt most people really feel that way (and it likely doesn't make the current situation good in most people's eyes).
My background is that I'm an artist who has suffered from people pirating my music.
I wonder how many people pirated the music.
We could quantify how much we lost due to piracy
You know exactly how many pirates there were?
In this capitalistic society, I agree that if you are able to pay an artist and wish for them to produce further content, it would be smart to pay them. Especially if they're independent. I don't think it's actual harm if someone doesn't pay, but I do think it is a potential loss of potential gain.
Why would that be most relevant when he's the one that brought up the word "wrong"? I wouldn't say that the law is always right, and I'm pretty sure that people (in countries where this is true) know that copyright infringement is illegal.
When someone uses a word like that, I will attempt to 'correct' them.
I think it's good to point out inaccuracies, semantics or not.
wrong
And depending on your moral code, it might not even be wrong to begin with.
justification phase.
How horrible that is!
you profit.
Not losing something is not the same as gaining something. You didn't gain anything, you just kept what you already had.
Because some things are only slightly wrong. As long as there's something worse that you're not doing, that makes your crime/law breaking kind of trivial and that's easy to morph into "it's really okay", right?
If it could be worse, then the current situation is good...
I love the defenses on Slashdot.
On Slashdot? They're present everywhere. And 'bad' arguments are, from what I've seen, present on both sides. One side insists what the other side is doing as wrong, the other side insists that it's not, and many, from what I've seen, believe that they're absolutely right and cannot be wrong.
"Shut up, evil capitalist pigs! You're just a corporate shill!" "You just want to steal from artists and get everything for free, you thieves! Trying to 'justify' your actions is wrong and something that can't be done!"
Whether it is society's (a majority's) opinion on what is reasonable, or a judge's, "reasonable" is still subjective. No matter what test they use, the definition will probably remain subjective.
It may be useful at times, but I think "it's ripe for abuse" depending on the situation.
If it was someone's goal to destroy the world, and doing so made them happy, then why would be happy. Trying to tell people what they are feeling is often futile.You can't just say that someone isn't happy and then expect it to be true. Only they would likely know that.
My post was intended to mock the fact that some people seem to use words like "socialist" and "commie" as outright insults. As if any of those things are inherently 'bad'. Oftentimes (though perhaps not there), they don't even make sense.
The same could be (and probably is being) done with any word ("capitalist," "liberal," "conservative," etc).
I'm trying to tell you the average person could find Maths incredibly useful in their life
And you could be a rocket scientist, a diver, a fisher, or pretty much anything in existence.
What matters to me is how likely they are to use it.
turned Maths into Advanced Maths
Of course. I only have a problem with advanced math being mandatory. Why? I know of not a single person that doesn't use basic math. It's likely that they'll use it (highly, highly likely). Advanced math (which is what I call things like algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc) is far less used and the average person (as far as I know) is far less likely to use it.
rather than what they should do
They "should" do whatever they want. I don't believe in deities that dictate what people "should" do.
Perhaps average people don't use Maths as much as they should (esp. in your country), but that is not an argument for removing everything but the most basic maths from the syllabus, quite the contrary.
They don't use it because they probably don't need it. Many jobs likely don't require the more advanced math.
However we have a philosophical roadblock which is making you object to all of these arguments with spurious responses
Yes. You're 100% correct, and my opinions (that's what they are) are 100% wrong. My opinions aren't anymore "spurious" than yours from what I see.
which is that you don't like the idea of any mandatory classes at all.
Apparently you've misinterpreted me. For me to accept a mandatory class, it must teach things that are likely to be used by the general populace.
mandatory schooling
Mandatory schooling? Hopefully that includes unschooling and homeschooling.
teach children the value of subjects
The "value" of any of any of those things is completely subjective.
Somehow I thought that might be the case.
Indeed. I don't care for "maybes" and "mights." As I said, I believe that there are plenty of people that simply do not have the aptitude for programming or advanced math. Not only that, but if they truly want to make their work more 'efficient' (with, say, programming), then they can take the extra classes. None of this is mandatory to complete their jobs.
All you need is for one person with a larger sales/marketing budget than you to have that line of thinking, and you're basically out of business.
I was just saying that not everyone would stop doing research. Not everyone would do it for profit, and some people (perhaps funded by someone who profited off of another project) wouldn't require any addition money.
Which is why we have what were supposed to be limited patent/copyright protections, which work quite well - its when they become effectively unlimited that their problems really come to the fore.
Not a fan of artificial scarcity, more games/research/music/movies or not.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's infringing upon an idea that they have in their head (that they should be the only ones allowed to distribute the product)? Now, it may be a law, but that's still what is seemingly happening.
Even if they did lose that right (which they didn't, since no one else has the right in the first place), I still wouldn't call it theft. I wouldn't call the inability to believe something because of the actions of another individual "theft."
When you hire a painter, there's a contract. Copyright holders had a contract with ALL OF US. When one of us violates that contract it is indeed very much like not paying the painter.
The thing that I think is wrong with this analogy is that in one situation, someone is being asked by a party to complete a job and then not getting paid, and then in the other situation, no such thing is happening. They start the job and complete it without any interaction with the pirate.
All of us? Irrelevant. The pirate didn't give them any job.
You are permanently depriving them of the time it took to produce the software
No, you aren't. They already used that time, and of their own volition. The pirate had nothing to do with that.
and their right to get paid for producing the software.
How does that work? They still very much have that right. You haven't taken it from them. Someone else can still buy the software.
Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done.
Except, in that case, you've asked them to paint your house (asked them to do a job), and then not paid them. You've actually hurt (depending on how you define "hurt") them by directly wasting their time. Pirates are not people who ask artists to do jobs and then don't pay them. The artist takes the job of their own volition and the pirate has nothing to do with that (they're just potential customers).
Wait, what? Even if he objected to that, that doesn't mean that he would say that it was theft.
objective test
What "objective test"?
Besides, if you can't trust the judges in a common law system to apply the test in a just and equitable manner, then you have bigger problems than defamation law.
What is "just"? That's subjective, too. The fact that you disagree with a judge's decision doesn't mean that his decision wasn't "just."
The system will likely always be ripe for abuse.
I don't think this is true. I bought a video card for under $100 about 2-3 years ago, and it can play Skyrim just fine on high settings (with minimal lag). I might not be able to crank every setting up to the highest it can go, but I can easily play it on high settings. I was surprised at how far merely upgrading certain PC parts can get you.
The world is irrelevant to whether or not they can 'justify' (none is needed) their actions.
But I do feel that it's technically incorrect. Yes, language evolves, but that doesn't mean that I'd support the word "murder" meaning the same thing as "theft." It's simply confusing and may give people the wrong idea about what is happening.
And I don't feel that the word 'pirate' is as misleading (although it still might be).
It's not "pedantic" to me. I apparently feel that being technically correct is important.
But, in addition to that, it could make people get the wrong idea about what copyright infringement really is. Other times, using such words could make people who know what it is outright dismiss you from the very beginning.
Because in the absence of a philosophic or religious grounding, you are either left with subjective morality where everyone determines what is right for them;
That's not even what I meant. He stated that something was wrong (or, at least, he mentioned the word), so I said that that's not necessarily the case. Life as we know it goes on. The laws stay the same.
Really, all I meant to imply was that it wasn't necessarily absolutely wrong (not that he said that it was).
NO rational basis
There's nothing inherently irrational about emotions. Certainly, they can sometimes lead someone to use logical fallacies and such, but they aren't inherently irrational.
and if you dont understand THAT
I don't see where I said that that wasn't the case. Although I do think that "strong" is subjective.
It can also be done for little purpose other than to shift attention away from the actual topic.
No, because you can debate more than one point at a time. And the exact same thing could be said about people claiming that it's theft. If someone says something that I feel is technically incorrect, then I will probably attempt to correct them. If they don't want that, then they can try to avoid saying things that I think are technically incorrect. And if they don't wish to do that, they could always not comment at all. Or just deal with the replies.
I understand what you're getting at, but it's pure pedantic sophistry.
It's not pedantic to me.
In my case, you gained my music
And? From what I saw, he was talking about people who receive money by selling copyrighted goods. Then you claimed that pirates profit. I interpreted that as meaning that pirates somehow receive money whenever they download a copyrighted good. But maybe I just misinterpreted you.
representing a huge investment of time and money on my part, and I lost something - that investment that I made.
You already spent the time and money to make the goods. No matter what the pirate does, I don't see how they could possibly take something that you've already lost.
And it isn't the pirate that incurred those losses upon you. You did that of your own volition (something that they likely had absolutely no part in). I don't disagree that some (the exact number is something I am unsure of) cause a loss of potential profit.
At best that's debatable. At worst, it's amoral, narcissistic, and verging on sociopathic.
That was actually sarcasm. I've seen the "it could be worse" arguments quite a bit. And while it is possible to feel good because the worst hasn't happened yet, I doubt most people really feel that way (and it likely doesn't make the current situation good in most people's eyes).
My background is that I'm an artist who has suffered from people pirating my music.
I wonder how many people pirated the music.
We could quantify how much we lost due to piracy
You know exactly how many pirates there were?
In this capitalistic society, I agree that if you are able to pay an artist and wish for them to produce further content, it would be smart to pay them. Especially if they're independent. I don't think it's actual harm if someone doesn't pay, but I do think it is a potential loss of potential gain.
Why would that be most relevant when he's the one that brought up the word "wrong"? I wouldn't say that the law is always right, and I'm pretty sure that people (in countries where this is true) know that copyright infringement is illegal.
When someone uses a word like that, I will attempt to 'correct' them.
Semantics.
I think it's good to point out inaccuracies, semantics or not.
wrong
And depending on your moral code, it might not even be wrong to begin with.
justification phase.
How horrible that is!
you profit.
Not losing something is not the same as gaining something. You didn't gain anything, you just kept what you already had.
Because some things are only slightly wrong. As long as there's something worse that you're not doing, that makes your crime/law breaking kind of trivial and that's easy to morph into "it's really okay", right?
If it could be worse, then the current situation is good...
I love the defenses on Slashdot.
On Slashdot? They're present everywhere. And 'bad' arguments are, from what I've seen, present on both sides. One side insists what the other side is doing as wrong, the other side insists that it's not, and many, from what I've seen, believe that they're absolutely right and cannot be wrong.
"Shut up, evil capitalist pigs! You're just a corporate shill!"
"You just want to steal from artists and get everything for free, you thieves! Trying to 'justify' your actions is wrong and something that can't be done!"
Good thing he's not taking anything, then.
I thought it was called "differing opinions." My opponents just need to grow up and agree with me!
And then cue defense of copyrights/patents in 3...2...1...
Anyone who says anything that disagrees with my opinion is just delusional. I'm the only correct one!
We already have one.
Whether it is society's (a majority's) opinion on what is reasonable, or a judge's, "reasonable" is still subjective. No matter what test they use, the definition will probably remain subjective.
It may be useful at times, but I think "it's ripe for abuse" depending on the situation.
You might not think that eating other animals is 'wrong', but from what I see, claiming that other animals do it too won't prove that it's 'right'.
If it was someone's goal to destroy the world, and doing so made them happy, then why would be happy. Trying to tell people what they are feeling is often futile.You can't just say that someone isn't happy and then expect it to be true. Only they would likely know that.
Now we just need a definition of "reasonable" that isn't completely subjective.
My post was intended to mock the fact that some people seem to use words like "socialist" and "commie" as outright insults. As if any of those things are inherently 'bad'. Oftentimes (though perhaps not there), they don't even make sense.
The same could be (and probably is being) done with any word ("capitalist," "liberal," "conservative," etc).
Shut up, you socialist (don't worry, like commie, that word doesn't actually mean anything anymore).
I think I'm a member of the human species.
A common way of thinking about it, but that fact doesn't mean that you must value humans the most.
good
Subjective.
Yes. A few. There are billions of people living in the world, and many born every single day. A few million is a few to me.
I'm trying to tell you the average person could find Maths incredibly useful in their life
And you could be a rocket scientist, a diver, a fisher, or pretty much anything in existence.
What matters to me is how likely they are to use it.
turned Maths into Advanced Maths
Of course. I only have a problem with advanced math being mandatory. Why? I know of not a single person that doesn't use basic math. It's likely that they'll use it (highly, highly likely). Advanced math (which is what I call things like algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc) is far less used and the average person (as far as I know) is far less likely to use it.
rather than what they should do
They "should" do whatever they want. I don't believe in deities that dictate what people "should" do.
Perhaps average people don't use Maths as much as they should (esp. in your country), but that is not an argument for removing everything but the most basic maths from the syllabus, quite the contrary.
They don't use it because they probably don't need it. Many jobs likely don't require the more advanced math.
However we have a philosophical roadblock which is making you object to all of these arguments with spurious responses
Yes. You're 100% correct, and my opinions (that's what they are) are 100% wrong. My opinions aren't anymore "spurious" than yours from what I see.
which is that you don't like the idea of any mandatory classes at all.
Apparently you've misinterpreted me. For me to accept a mandatory class, it must teach things that are likely to be used by the general populace.
mandatory schooling
Mandatory schooling? Hopefully that includes unschooling and homeschooling.
teach children the value of subjects
The "value" of any of any of those things is completely subjective.
Somehow I thought that might be the case.
Indeed. I don't care for "maybes" and "mights." As I said, I believe that there are plenty of people that simply do not have the aptitude for programming or advanced math. Not only that, but if they truly want to make their work more 'efficient' (with, say, programming), then they can take the extra classes. None of this is mandatory to complete their jobs.
All you need is for one person with a larger sales/marketing budget than you to have that line of thinking, and you're basically out of business.
I was just saying that not everyone would stop doing research. Not everyone would do it for profit, and some people (perhaps funded by someone who profited off of another project) wouldn't require any addition money.
Which is why we have what were supposed to be limited patent/copyright protections, which work quite well - its when they become effectively unlimited that their problems really come to the fore.
Not a fan of artificial scarcity, more games/research/music/movies or not.