If the economy of the industry changed, perhaps we won't have any more Transformers films or similar films that are high on the special effects and low on artistic value. However, we'd still have worthwhile art.
"Artistic value" is subjective. As is "worthwhile" and what is considered "art." Some people do like these high-budget films (and some can only be made if you have a significant amount of money).
Capitalist societies have existed for thousands of centuries without entertainment or media being paid for by the common person.
That's great, but there is a few differences now. We have entertainment that costs lots of money and time and takes many people to make (notably video games and movies, depending on which ones). Not many people would make it for free, and many people seem to like entertainment with a high budget (which doesn't necessarily mean that it will be "good," but some people believe that it generally is).
Not to mention that since we have already adopted this system of paying for entertainment, it will be hard to get rid of. At this point, I think the most likely way it will be gotten rid of is through the abolishment of exchanging things for currency. Maybe not. Who knows?
as human beings, they should have the cognitive capacity to understand complex mental abstractions such as morality, healthy social balance, empathy, and temperance.
Perhaps they do understand morality but don't have the same morals as others.
But there is an opportunity cost that is indeed lost
That depends on the person. And whether losing an opportunity for a sale (but only potentially) could be considered harm can be debated.
Someone spent money, time, and creativity making that movie/song.
Their own fault.
You aren't entitled to get it for free just because you can copy it for free.
Because of current laws, yes. But, really, you aren't inherently "entitled" to anything; including life. So, I think that's a rather pointless statement.
It's not a good thing? I don't know if it ultimately is, but how would you know either way? I wouldn't say that the potential loss of potential profit harmed them in any way whatsoever (regardless of what the laws says). They never had the money to begin with.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious.
Or perhaps they just believe that it can't be good without being new. Perhaps that is what they personally like. Who knows what they really believe?
I don't think so. With how much time and resources the government spends to "stop" copyright infringement, it doesn't surprise me that they'd waste even more on this. But I'm willing to bet that the only people they'll find is the idiots (in my opinion) that don't know how to hide their identities.
What? Where is the evidence for this? Some people say that freedom of speech is an "inalienable right," but from what I see, it's just the "right" to not be penalized by the government for saying something that someone else does not like. I haven't seen any evidence that you are born with any "rights." As far as I know, you do not inherently have the "right" to do anything.
What? So where exactly is the evidence for these "inalienable rights"? People seem to like to spout their existence as fact, but from what I see, they're just something given to you by society that can be taken away quite easily.
Idiots like you are the reason we're losing more of our rights with each successive national election.
How do you lose an "inalienable right"? Furthermore, why does it matter whether or not someone believes in inalienable rights?
You ever seen someone searching desperately for a calculator because they need to add up a list of 5 or 6 numbers? Or someone that can't write a paragraph without a dictionary?
No, and I don't think many people are like that. Adding numbers and being able to write in your own language are basic skills. I'd say remembering such things is more useful than remembering other things (because of how frequently you use them).
What benefits does having a two-foot long belly button have? How many people believe it has benefits? Why?
Why not be consistent in your reasoning and state that it's immoral to cut any more of the umbilical cord than is absolutely necessary at birth? It is also part of the baby's body. Sure, it might (also) cause health risks to have people with two-feet-long "belly buttons", but who are we to make that decision on somebody else's behalf?
I don't see what is inconsistent about picking and choosing what to allow and what not to allow. It happens all the time, and since they are different things, it is not contradictory (unless it is contradictory to the person's beliefs themselves).
Personally, I don't like forced circumcision. I don't think it should be allowed.
How is that hypocritical? It's a completely different procedure. You can pick and choose which procedures should or should not be forced on a child and not be hypocritical at all.
I don't care anymore about the children than I do some random person. I don't think anyone should be searched by the TSA, and I don't see why people only get really upset when children are involved (if that is the case).
You acted as if there was an absolute set of morals (you didn't mention anything about subjectivity). I didn't say anything about thinking that some sets of morals weren't "good" (which is also subjective).
Don't be silly. To interpret something means to change its meaning to whatever you please, even if your new meaning doesn't have anything to do with the original one!
Open my ears and listen to what people say. Open my eyes and read what people write. Yes, it's that simple.
Well, I haven't seen very much software with odd names such as this, so I wouldn't know whether or not the software is good or the software makers are "responsible."
What would "correct" mean in that context? Is there a "correctly being offended" and an "incorrectly being offended"?
No. And that was my point. I was saying that just because the majority thinks something is offensive, that does not somehow make it "factually" offensive (or that it is wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
If the economy of the industry changed, perhaps we won't have any more Transformers films or similar films that are high on the special effects and low on artistic value. However, we'd still have worthwhile art.
"Artistic value" is subjective. As is "worthwhile" and what is considered "art." Some people do like these high-budget films (and some can only be made if you have a significant amount of money).
Capitalist societies have existed for thousands of centuries without entertainment or media being paid for by the common person.
That's great, but there is a few differences now. We have entertainment that costs lots of money and time and takes many people to make (notably video games and movies, depending on which ones). Not many people would make it for free, and many people seem to like entertainment with a high budget (which doesn't necessarily mean that it will be "good," but some people believe that it generally is).
Not to mention that since we have already adopted this system of paying for entertainment, it will be hard to get rid of. At this point, I think the most likely way it will be gotten rid of is through the abolishment of exchanging things for currency. Maybe not. Who knows?
as human beings, they should have the cognitive capacity to understand complex mental abstractions such as morality, healthy social balance, empathy, and temperance.
Perhaps they do understand morality but don't have the same morals as others.
The whole of copyright is basically a despicable, evil lie. And it's time for it to die.
Personally, I doubt that's going to happen as long as we live in a capitalistic society where new content is created by actual humans.
But there is an opportunity cost that is indeed lost
That depends on the person. And whether losing an opportunity for a sale (but only potentially) could be considered harm can be debated.
Someone spent money, time, and creativity making that movie/song.
Their own fault.
You aren't entitled to get it for free just because you can copy it for free.
Because of current laws, yes. But, really, you aren't inherently "entitled" to anything; including life. So, I think that's a rather pointless statement.
It's not a good thing? I don't know if it ultimately is, but how would you know either way? I wouldn't say that the potential loss of potential profit harmed them in any way whatsoever (regardless of what the laws says). They never had the money to begin with.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious.
Or perhaps they just believe that it can't be good without being new. Perhaps that is what they personally like. Who knows what they really believe?
They would have been right, too.
That would depend on who you ask.
Well, they'll have to have a lot of resources if they truly tried to hide themselves. And they'd better hope that other people cooperate with them.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
I don't think so. With how much time and resources the government spends to "stop" copyright infringement, it doesn't surprise me that they'd waste even more on this. But I'm willing to bet that the only people they'll find is the idiots (in my opinion) that don't know how to hide their identities.
Humans aren't dumb animals.
I'd say that the majority are.
We don't breed when resources are rare.
That depends on the person.
and absolutely nothing that anyone can possibly do could ever hope to suppress it at the scale that would be necessary to make any real difference.
I doubt that anyone could possibly know this for certain.
"Ethically wrong"? What is that and who gets to define what it is?
They are inherent in your being.
What? Where is the evidence for this? Some people say that freedom of speech is an "inalienable right," but from what I see, it's just the "right" to not be penalized by the government for saying something that someone else does not like. I haven't seen any evidence that you are born with any "rights." As far as I know, you do not inherently have the "right" to do anything.
What? So where exactly is the evidence for these "inalienable rights"? People seem to like to spout their existence as fact, but from what I see, they're just something given to you by society that can be taken away quite easily.
Idiots like you are the reason we're losing more of our rights with each successive national election.
How do you lose an "inalienable right"? Furthermore, why does it matter whether or not someone believes in inalienable rights?
Someone with 25 years experience is far more employable than someone with 5 years because they... have more experience?
That depends on the person. While that is almost always true, it doesn't always have to be (unless you were talking about the same person).
You ever seen someone searching desperately for a calculator because they need to add up a list of 5 or 6 numbers? Or someone that can't write a paragraph without a dictionary?
No, and I don't think many people are like that. Adding numbers and being able to write in your own language are basic skills. I'd say remembering such things is more useful than remembering other things (because of how frequently you use them).
What benefits does having a two-foot long belly button have? How many people believe it has benefits? Why?
Why not be consistent in your reasoning and state that it's immoral to cut any more of the umbilical cord than is absolutely necessary at birth? It is also part of the baby's body. Sure, it might (also) cause health risks to have people with two-feet-long "belly buttons", but who are we to make that decision on somebody else's behalf?
I don't see what is inconsistent about picking and choosing what to allow and what not to allow. It happens all the time, and since they are different things, it is not contradictory (unless it is contradictory to the person's beliefs themselves).
Personally, I don't like forced circumcision. I don't think it should be allowed.
How is that hypocritical? It's a completely different procedure. You can pick and choose which procedures should or should not be forced on a child and not be hypocritical at all.
I don't care anymore about the children than I do some random person. I don't think anyone should be searched by the TSA, and I don't see why people only get really upset when children are involved (if that is the case).
You acted as if there was an absolute set of morals (you didn't mention anything about subjectivity). I didn't say anything about thinking that some sets of morals weren't "good" (which is also subjective).
Because morals and ethics are likely subjective and some people may think that it is moral if it benefits society as a whole.
Looks like it. If you don't want that, create a new amendment.
Don't be silly. To interpret something means to change its meaning to whatever you please, even if your new meaning doesn't have anything to do with the original one!
Open my ears and listen to what people say. Open my eyes and read what people write. Yes, it's that simple.
Well, I haven't seen very much software with odd names such as this, so I wouldn't know whether or not the software is good or the software makers are "responsible."
What would "correct" mean in that context? Is there a "correctly being offended" and an "incorrectly being offended"?
No. And that was my point. I was saying that just because the majority thinks something is offensive, that does not somehow make it "factually" offensive (or that it is wrong).