It's only when they upload the file, allowing hundreds (or thousands) of other people to download it, that you see people getting those kinds of fines.
They seem to want to put the burden on a single uploader. However, if they also sued another person who was also downloading the exact same files, would they do the same to them? That seems like double-dipping to me. Getting paid for the same thing (all of the copies uploaded) multiple times.
Unless those millions of dollars are just punitive damages. But in that case, I'd say a fine that big is absolutely ridiculous.
do you want the kid to be socially crippled or not.
Even if they're constantly on the computer, that doesn't mean that they will be socially crippled. And even if they are "socially crippled," so what? I guess they won't have the expertise to suck up to people like a normal person can, but I don't really care.
And it's also possible to have minimal social interaction and still have a good life.
That depends on whether they want it or not (and, as far as I know, social interaction isn't absolutely necessary for anyone). "Valuable" is subjective.
Except that the "you'll understand when you're older" argument completely fails to answer any of your opponents' arguments and makes a number of assumptions that might not even be true (that they don't understand now but simply disagree and that they will agree in the future). I see no point in making such an argument.
I expect people to simplify it as much as possible. Ambiguities aren't solved through the use of repetition. And, if they are, then something is terribly wrong with how the contract/EULA/law was written to begin with.
"nobody takes the European Commission seriously" as a premis to an argument undermines the argument.
Whether it undermines the entire argument or not is up to the individual to decide (undermine is subjective). In other words, you could challenge his use of "nobody," but whether or not the rest of his argument is trustworthy to people is subjective.
And I'm sure someone else might say that you were just being pedantic.
You are missing the point. The fact that there are obvious, substantial differences between IP and physical property doesn't change the fact that both are constructs created and protected by the state.
I didn't miss the point. I knew what you were trying to say. I just decided to point out the difference.
Note that I am against copyrights and patents (at least as they currently are); that is why I find dumb arguments like yours and the GP's so annoying. There are strong arguments against IP, you are just failing to make them.
I didn't make any arguments against IP. I merely pointed out a difference between the two situations. It seems you misunderstood my intentions.
The fact that I own a piece of land, or a car, or a computer, and that I can keep you from using it, is ultimately just a construct and agreement protected by the state.
Except that in that situation, you own the property. You can't use normal property laws to tell me what I can do with my own property (like writing a book using my own paper), even if I do plan to release it. That's where copyright comes in.
Or you could just download them illegally. Then you'll get to see it. Not to mention the fact that people will be hard-pressed to state that you caused some kind of lost sale.
In these situations, the potential 'harm' that copyright infringement sometimes does is even less likely to occur than usual.
No argument here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there, and I have to deal with it.
Code is almost like a completely different language to people who don't know anything about programming, anyway. Or, at least, it can be. Legalese is not (even if they don't know some words).
Except when a Judge agrees that a potentially mistaken reading of the text agrees with the other party in an adversarial proceeding
Then the judge is wrong. It can't be helped. I don't think we need a ridiculous amount of redundancy because a judge might make a mistake.
How would you write it now?
Simplified. I would expect people to understand the basics of the language I wrote the contract in (and apparently the judge doesn't).
You would hope, but how does your new law interact with another law from over there, and this one from over there.
Well, there are many laws that seem to be a huge mess. Of course, I'm talking about a situation where they are all magically simplified at once (as much as is possible). And perhaps people would benefit from trying to understand some of the things that simply can't be simplified.
Assuming of course you agree with the writers of this document.
I live in the US, and I certainly don't agree with anything that says anything like that. I don't really believe in magical rights fairies (or whatever it is that grants rights).
Slashdot Mirror
It's only when they upload the file, allowing hundreds (or thousands) of other people to download it, that you see people getting those kinds of fines.
They seem to want to put the burden on a single uploader. However, if they also sued another person who was also downloading the exact same files, would they do the same to them? That seems like double-dipping to me. Getting paid for the same thing (all of the copies uploaded) multiple times.
Unless those millions of dollars are just punitive damages. But in that case, I'd say a fine that big is absolutely ridiculous.
While I trust myself to handle these issues better than a computer
I'm sure "Joe Average" thinks the same thing...
Being that humans are natually social beings (things like "cabin fever" erupt without it)
Is it not possible for a human that despises social activities (all of them) to be born?
it is essential.
When you say that it's "essential," I interpret that as meaning that they will die without it.
so proper behaviour
And that's another problem, in my opinion. Lots of people seem to expect that you act in a way that they personally like.
Those who don't seek social interaction are known as recluse, and there's a reason why there's a negative connotation associated with the term.
Because of differing opinions.
do you want the kid to be socially crippled or not.
Even if they're constantly on the computer, that doesn't mean that they will be socially crippled. And even if they are "socially crippled," so what? I guess they won't have the expertise to suck up to people like a normal person can, but I don't really care.
And it's also possible to have minimal social interaction and still have a good life.
What do you mean by "need"? If they were left completely alone in the world and had all of their needs somehow attended to, would they die?
Some words have multiple meanings. And? I'm pretty sure idiots will abuse the law no matter how redundant you make it.
As I said, simplify it as much as possible.
Children need social interaction
That depends on whether they want it or not (and, as far as I know, social interaction isn't absolutely necessary for anyone). "Valuable" is subjective.
But do you think self-education is going to be as good being taught by professors?
Depends on the person.
Those pieces of paper can be pretty important sometimes.
Except that the "you'll understand when you're older" argument completely fails to answer any of your opponents' arguments and makes a number of assumptions that might not even be true (that they don't understand now but simply disagree and that they will agree in the future). I see no point in making such an argument.
All of your arguments are completely incorrect. You'll understand when you're older.
And you'll also understand why the Earth is flat. But only when you're older.
I don't get it. The first one is just outright incorrect. That isn't redundancy or simplification.
superior morals
What is a superior moral and who decides what is and is not superior?
I expect people to simplify it as much as possible. Ambiguities aren't solved through the use of repetition. And, if they are, then something is terribly wrong with how the contract/EULA/law was written to begin with.
That sounds awful. Therefore, all of my arguments are completely incorrect.
Bad words are bad because I said so. I don't like them, and so they should be banned.
Think of all the children that are being saved!
Logically/pedantically it probably negates the whole argument
Not really. His entire argument would have to depend on that assertion for that to be true. To me, it doesn't appear that it does.
Of course, I do agree that he shouldn't have used the word "nobody." And I also agree that it may make certain people dismiss the argument.
"nobody takes the European Commission seriously" as a premis to an argument undermines the argument.
Whether it undermines the entire argument or not is up to the individual to decide (undermine is subjective). In other words, you could challenge his use of "nobody," but whether or not the rest of his argument is trustworthy to people is subjective.
And I'm sure someone else might say that you were just being pedantic.
learn from that mistake
That's absolutely hilarious.
You are missing the point. The fact that there are obvious, substantial differences between IP and physical property doesn't change the fact that both are constructs created and protected by the state.
I didn't miss the point. I knew what you were trying to say. I just decided to point out the difference.
Note that I am against copyrights and patents (at least as they currently are); that is why I find dumb arguments like yours and the GP's so annoying. There are strong arguments against IP, you are just failing to make them.
I didn't make any arguments against IP. I merely pointed out a difference between the two situations. It seems you misunderstood my intentions.
The fact that I own a piece of land, or a car, or a computer, and that I can keep you from using it, is ultimately just a construct and agreement protected by the state.
Except that in that situation, you own the property. You can't use normal property laws to tell me what I can do with my own property (like writing a book using my own paper), even if I do plan to release it. That's where copyright comes in.
undermines the rest of your argument.
Really? I don't think so. Therefore, your entire argument has been undermined.
So you don't see them.
Or you could just download them illegally. Then you'll get to see it. Not to mention the fact that people will be hard-pressed to state that you caused some kind of lost sale.
In these situations, the potential 'harm' that copyright infringement sometimes does is even less likely to occur than usual.
No argument here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there, and I have to deal with it.
Code is almost like a completely different language to people who don't know anything about programming, anyway. Or, at least, it can be. Legalese is not (even if they don't know some words).
Except when a Judge agrees that a potentially mistaken reading of the text agrees with the other party in an adversarial proceeding
Then the judge is wrong. It can't be helped. I don't think we need a ridiculous amount of redundancy because a judge might make a mistake.
How would you write it now?
Simplified. I would expect people to understand the basics of the language I wrote the contract in (and apparently the judge doesn't).
You would hope, but how does your new law interact with another law from over there, and this one from over there.
Well, there are many laws that seem to be a huge mess. Of course, I'm talking about a situation where they are all magically simplified at once (as much as is possible). And perhaps people would benefit from trying to understand some of the things that simply can't be simplified.
Assuming of course you agree with the writers of this document.
I live in the US, and I certainly don't agree with anything that says anything like that. I don't really believe in magical rights fairies (or whatever it is that grants rights).