Considering that many people appear to have similar beliefs when it comes to morals/ethics and what would/wouldn't benefit society, I don't see why. Yes, there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in many circumstances, but there is still likely/unlikely and evidence can still be used.
I didn't say that there was. I merely said that the fact that they would break down under the same situation that they criticize others for breaking down in does not in itself mean that they are incorrect.
what must be done.
What must be done?
It's always easy to tell others what they "should do".
What you think they should do. It seems to me that someone would wish to fight unjust laws because it would benefit society. Probably.
It's easy because they're the ones dealing with the consequences
And this guy asked for donations so he could fight them, and then stopped fighting them, never actually using the money for its intended purpose (it is unsure what he will do with it now). If that didn't happen, people probably wouldn't be so critical of him.
Oh, the people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing. You're probably right, then.
Only a small minority would have no problems with taking the step into outright theft.
"Theft" doesn't apply here.
Why is it so hard to understand that the general public (who like to think of themselves as decent people) would not have a line that they would not cross when it comes to copying something.
"Decent people" is subjective. But, really, if they were planning on copying software (but were prevented from doing so by petty DRM), then what line would that be? They already crossed it, at that point. Their efforts were just thwarted by easily removed DRM.
it is more aimed at people who do not identify themselves as pirates but who just loan their discs to their mates.
Typically, copying an infinite amount of copyrighted data and losing nothing is seen as "bad." Yet, if you were to lend a disc to your friend, you would clearly lose it. I suppose I was just talking about their idiocy in trying to stop borrowing and such.
Not everyone wants to risk installing malware on their machine.
Which is why you get it from trusted sources. Consequentially, those are typically popular. You can also scan the file with an antivirus, or better yet, virustotal. Really, only technologically illiterate people would get viruses (unless the virus is very, very hard to detect or something, in addition to being new).
Though, I suppose if we are talking about these "casual pirates," they wouldn't know that. So I guess you're correct there.
I have found that some people can justify it to themselves that they are not doing anything wrong if they can install something on their drive as long as they don't have to crack it.
Some people, maybe, but I don't think that the number of them is very high (it's a seemingly strange argument to make, after all). Horrible DRM does indeed turn off some customers, I believe, or perhaps even makes them download the software for free. I'd be willing to wager that the amount of people that do not wish to support DRM (or deal with it) is higher than the amount of people who use the argument present in your comment and the amount of people who would simply walk away from using a piece of software that they wanted previously simply because it had petty, easily removed DRM in it.
And then you'd be supporting the company that used the DRM. By continuing to support them, it probably won't get better, and it may even eventually get worse.
but DRM isn't driving anyone to piracy who isn't already okay with piracy from an ethical standpoint.
Except people who think it would be worse to support DRM.
Also, why shouldn't people be able to lend their games to others (which, if we're thinking of the same thing, isn't the same as allowing others to download it and copy the data)?
What does this even mean? Even someone who only has minimal knowledge of how to work a computer can figure out how to install a crack (especially considering that there's instructions). Yes, that may be slightly more difficult than just being able to copy the game and not having to install any cracks, but for someone who is planning on getting the game for free, I doubt that they'd care all that much about such a small hassle.
That's true if the user is a complete idiot. Typically, you'll be able to avoid most, if not all, viruses if you simply only download from trusted sources. The risk could still be there, but it will be minimal.
Criminals become criminals largely because they are too stupid to find a more reliable way to make a living.
And other times, they may have little to no choice and place their own survival and well being above the survival and well being of others (something that normal people do every day, but not necessarily to other humans). This doesn't necessarily imply that they are "stupid." It could be that they merely have a different set of morals and beliefs.
The difference is that that is easily provable. This, however, is not. He is speaking of the intentions of most people without actually performing any study (or linking to a study that proves his claim).
What they're taking is something that you seem not to value at all but society at large disagrees.
I can see that.
To give a real world example of the effect of this, imagine that it was illegal to charge for plumbing work.
No. Don't compare copying data to jobs which require that someone uses their time, effort, or resources to complete them. Copying data doesn't require any of that from the original author. In your example, something was removed from the person who did the job: time and effort.
Note that I don't advocate simply removing copyright laws. I advocate altering society in a large way (for many other reasons that just copyright). Why? Because I believe that our capitalistic society, which runs on scarcity (and forces artificial scarcity of the good is not scarce) is what is harming authors, 'pirates', and normal people, not the 'pirates'. I believe it's the fault of the society that requires artificial currency in order for an author to continue making works (and, in the case of copying data, they are almost forced to implement artificial scarcity in an attempt to gain more currency).
By the way, your statement that noone can "own" potential gain is nonsensical. By that logic, nobody can own anything since it's only the force of law that drives ownership to begin with.
What I meant was, it is likely impossible to actually own potential gain because you can't see it, touch it, use it, you never had it to begin with (the actual gain, I mean), and anyone can claim that you harmed them by not giving them everything you have (which would be a 'loss' of potential gain).
Well yes and by copying it without having the copyright to do that they violated the copyright.
When did I say otherwise? I know it's illegal. I know there are copyright laws. That is what is in dispute. Whether or not they should exist (though I think society should go through more changes if they were to be removed so that none suffer).
if you disagree, take the discussion to the court not here.
Not that that would do much, anyway. I will, however, continue to give my opinions in my comments.
Except if it's against an ordinary person. Then not much will be done. That free speech thing in the constitution, which lists no exceptions, is completely worthless, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that many people appear to have similar beliefs when it comes to morals/ethics and what would/wouldn't benefit society, I don't see why. Yes, there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in many circumstances, but there is still likely/unlikely and evidence can still be used.
Really there is no "correct" or "incorrect".
I didn't say that there was. I merely said that the fact that they would break down under the same situation that they criticize others for breaking down in does not in itself mean that they are incorrect.
what must be done.
What must be done?
It's always easy to tell others what they "should do".
What you think they should do. It seems to me that someone would wish to fight unjust laws because it would benefit society. Probably.
It's easy because they're the ones dealing with the consequences
And this guy asked for donations so he could fight them, and then stopped fighting them, never actually using the money for its intended purpose (it is unsure what he will do with it now). If that didn't happen, people probably wouldn't be so critical of him.
Whether or not they're worse than the US is irrelevant to their point. I think they're right, even if I think they need to change drastically as well.
When it's your own, well, different story.
It depends on the person.
Lots of people will jump in with accusations of "selling out", "siding with the man", etc. That's all pretty much delusional though.
Yet, even so, the fact that they might crumble if they themselves were in such a situation does not make them incorrect.
Still everyone agrees on that nobody should be allowed to use a program that someone created without permissions of the creator.
I don't (when the sufficient conditions arise). Many other people don't.
Would that make you more happy?
No. Then we're still utilizing artificial scarcity and forcing authors to combat people who seemingly don't even harm them.
Actually, disregard the last two points. As you said, these people we are speaking of don't even know what they're doing. I agree.
Oh, the people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing. You're probably right, then.
Only a small minority would have no problems with taking the step into outright theft.
"Theft" doesn't apply here.
Why is it so hard to understand that the general public (who like to think of themselves as decent people) would not have a line that they would not cross when it comes to copying something.
"Decent people" is subjective. But, really, if they were planning on copying software (but were prevented from doing so by petty DRM), then what line would that be? They already crossed it, at that point. Their efforts were just thwarted by easily removed DRM.
I was responding to this statement:
it is more aimed at people who do not identify themselves as pirates but who just loan their discs to their mates.
Typically, copying an infinite amount of copyrighted data and losing nothing is seen as "bad." Yet, if you were to lend a disc to your friend, you would clearly lose it. I suppose I was just talking about their idiocy in trying to stop borrowing and such.
Not everyone wants to risk installing malware on their machine.
Which is why you get it from trusted sources. Consequentially, those are typically popular. You can also scan the file with an antivirus, or better yet, virustotal. Really, only technologically illiterate people would get viruses (unless the virus is very, very hard to detect or something, in addition to being new).
Though, I suppose if we are talking about these "casual pirates," they wouldn't know that. So I guess you're correct there.
I have found that some people can justify it to themselves that they are not doing anything wrong if they can install something on their drive as long as they don't have to crack it.
Some people, maybe, but I don't think that the number of them is very high (it's a seemingly strange argument to make, after all). Horrible DRM does indeed turn off some customers, I believe, or perhaps even makes them download the software for free. I'd be willing to wager that the amount of people that do not wish to support DRM (or deal with it) is higher than the amount of people who use the argument present in your comment and the amount of people who would simply walk away from using a piece of software that they wanted previously simply because it had petty, easily removed DRM in it.
You can pay money and then crack it.
And then you'd be supporting the company that used the DRM. By continuing to support them, it probably won't get better, and it may even eventually get worse.
but DRM isn't driving anyone to piracy who isn't already okay with piracy from an ethical standpoint.
Except people who think it would be worse to support DRM.
Also, why shouldn't people be able to lend their games to others (which, if we're thinking of the same thing, isn't the same as allowing others to download it and copy the data)?
casual piracy
What does this even mean? Even someone who only has minimal knowledge of how to work a computer can figure out how to install a crack (especially considering that there's instructions). Yes, that may be slightly more difficult than just being able to copy the game and not having to install any cracks, but for someone who is planning on getting the game for free, I doubt that they'd care all that much about such a small hassle.
That's true if the user is a complete idiot. Typically, you'll be able to avoid most, if not all, viruses if you simply only download from trusted sources. The risk could still be there, but it will be minimal.
crime is not a rational choice.
It is if they wish to survive (as a last resort, it isn't so bad to try to fulfill that goal).
Criminals become criminals largely because they are too stupid to find a more reliable way to make a living.
And other times, they may have little to no choice and place their own survival and well being above the survival and well being of others (something that normal people do every day, but not necessarily to other humans). This doesn't necessarily imply that they are "stupid." It could be that they merely have a different set of morals and beliefs.
The difference is that that is easily provable. This, however, is not. He is speaking of the intentions of most people without actually performing any study (or linking to a study that proves his claim).
He doesn't? He stated something as a fact. I asked him if he could prove it. If he can't, then he shouldn't have stated it as a fact.
Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games.
Can you prove this?
What they're taking is something that you seem not to value at all but society at large disagrees.
I can see that.
To give a real world example of the effect of this, imagine that it was illegal to charge for plumbing work.
No. Don't compare copying data to jobs which require that someone uses their time, effort, or resources to complete them. Copying data doesn't require any of that from the original author. In your example, something was removed from the person who did the job: time and effort.
Note that I don't advocate simply removing copyright laws. I advocate altering society in a large way (for many other reasons that just copyright). Why? Because I believe that our capitalistic society, which runs on scarcity (and forces artificial scarcity of the good is not scarce) is what is harming authors, 'pirates', and normal people, not the 'pirates'. I believe it's the fault of the society that requires artificial currency in order for an author to continue making works (and, in the case of copying data, they are almost forced to implement artificial scarcity in an attempt to gain more currency).
By the way, your statement that noone can "own" potential gain is nonsensical. By that logic, nobody can own anything since it's only the force of law that drives ownership to begin with.
What I meant was, it is likely impossible to actually own potential gain because you can't see it, touch it, use it, you never had it to begin with (the actual gain, I mean), and anyone can claim that you harmed them by not giving them everything you have (which would be a 'loss' of potential gain).
Well yes and by copying it without having the copyright to do that they violated the copyright.
When did I say otherwise? I know it's illegal. I know there are copyright laws. That is what is in dispute. Whether or not they should exist (though I think society should go through more changes if they were to be removed so that none suffer).
if you disagree, take the discussion to the court not here.
Not that that would do much, anyway. I will, however, continue to give my opinions in my comments.
"100% effective"? I doubt that anything is.
I'd be surprised if getting them punished was as simple as calling the proper authorities claiming that some guy said he would kill you.
Yes. You are correct. The point is, though, that more often than not, it is completely ignored.
Except if it's against an ordinary person. Then not much will be done. That free speech thing in the constitution, which lists no exceptions, is completely worthless, anyway.