Supposedly, copyright is meant to encourage "innovation." I don't see how extending the length of the copyright beyond the author's death (the one who is supposed to innovate and create new works) just so the family members can leech off of his/her work is helping with that. With a house, there's no need to hand it over to other people. That won't really accomplish anything. But with copyright, it gives others a chance to innovate (supposedly) after you're gone.
Nope your wrong your using their product that they used time and effort to create.
Which isn't really their fault that they used time and effort to create the product. Not only that, but you literally cannot own a potential gain. You never had the gain in the first place, and just because you think you should have it, that doesn't make it a fact. They literally take nothing from the artist when they merely copy data.
They own it, and there is a law about it generally called "copyright".
That was pointless. That's what's being disputed.
Ever considered to quit the trolling.
Labeling the opposing view as mere "trolls" doesn't strengthen your argument.
"Slipping right past them"? I'm sure that happens to some people, but even if they hear about it, will they actually care? Some of them even side with Sony.
If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything
Not really. You can do it one (or a few companies) at a time. Assuming the strategy works, of course. But then again, I think I do a good enough job of giving any of these companies my money.
But the "rules" are purely arbitrary and idiotic, according to some. There's no reason that I see to be so hostile towards someone who simply doesn't shake hands or make eye contact. It's pointless, and that alone does not reveal anything noteworthy about their character. I don't believe it's a reason to instantly judge them.
not sure why you would call social functions "idiotic" since they evolve as surely as biological function, idiocy seems to be an innappropriate word
I used that word because I believe that judging people based on their lack of optimism in regards to social interaction (or certain aspects of it) is purely idiotic. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're "mean," that they're "liars," that they have some sort of mental disease, or that they can't do the job. That's the kind of behavior that I view as idiotic. It probably means that they are just introverts, or something similar to that.
Yes, but that is only because of the opinions of the general populace. I see no logical reason why either of them are factually important other than "because a lot of people like it that way." In other words, it appears to be general human idiocy. It's really their own fault if they are so (seemingly to me) sensitive that they can't handle not being given a handshake or not being looked in the eyes. Neither are required for non-arbitrary reasons.
Sure-- if you want to give off the constant, gut-level, and unshakable vibe of being either 1) creepy or 2) contemptuous of the person you're talking to.
Is there a better answer than "some people like it"? I was asking for a logical reason.
No idea of the importance of looking someone in the eye, having a good handshake
Might I ask how either of those are factually important? Many people seem to think that social interaction is factually important, but that really is their own opinion. Some people just don't like it or would rather be alone. I don't think there's anything wrong with that (unless they do want it but are terribly afraid).
These same people then proceed to whine about their lack of a social and love life.
*IF* the sexual message was as allowed as much as the violence message, then I have to agree that our society strongly favors lack-of-censorship as a core value. But to see it supported only in a way that is congruent with 3rd world theocracies -- I see it as *bull*.
I agree with you that it is idiotic that they censor anything. It has never made sense to me how sexuality is viewed as somehow worse than blowing someone's head off (or saying a few swear words). I don't think they should censor any of this content.
As for torture -- it used to be that it *didn't matter* if they thought we would benefit or not
And yet we still don't know their reasons for believing in it.
No -- you are talking about that. I'm talking about the less noticeable problem of of US adults who have lower compassion
And do you believe that that is enough reason to ban/censor something (even just for children), assuming that violent media is the actual cause (of which there is only circumstantial proof at best)? It is likely that if it affects children in ways that even they cannot notice, it would do the same to adults, right? There's also the fact that violent media existed even before that.
The effect also seems quite small.
It may not be cause and effect, BUT, it is certainly worth noting that *IF* it were true, that such games caused a lowering of empathy, then it could be a **partial** explanation for the general lowering of empathy that behavior, in the past decade, would indicate has been rising in the US adult population.
Alright. However, many, many people (children included) play video games. A grand majority of them do not become violent or murderers. The effect this has on them, if any, must indeed be fairly small in that case. Or so it appears to me.
We are talking about kids at an age when there is ample evidence that they are still discerning what is 'real' vs. not.
And we're also talking about the fact that the number of kids who do anything 'bad' because of this is small. Crimes, violence among youth, and the number of children who play video games... the numbers simply don't add up.
As for you having no problem distinguishing what is real vs. not, good for you! Since you are not a young child, I would hope you'd be able to.
I meant when I was a child. I played video games constantly, even at the age of five. Violent ones. I had no problems realizing that movies, video games, and other media was mere fiction.
A large number of people (large enough that there wasn't a large 'incident') agreed with 'torturing' prisoners -- a major difference from attitudes during the 70's, for example.
They may believe that it will end up protecting more people in the end (which I disagree with). You appear to have not taken their reasons for believing this into account. Whether or not they're 'right' is an entirely different matter. They could be deluded for all we know. This doesn't necessarily prove that they are violent.
When would we see people challenging a minimum safety net for healthcare or other programs to help the needy?
Bad examples. There could be any number of reasons that people disagree with the policies. There's more reasons that just thinking that the people are lazy. They may very well have this "compassion" that you speak of, and yet, for whatever reason, do not feel the risk is worth it.
And it is indeed circumstantial. Especially since it happens twenty years after the rise of violent video games, not just a few.
It's not just for insults, -- but anything involving subjective reality.
I'd say that's only true for people who have severe problems distinguishing fiction from reality. I for one had no problem. Apparently quite a few people are the same way, though there's likely no way of telling how many at this point.
The harm done to one from video games, is, obviously, subjective.
And, likely, statistically low. Or at least, we haven't seen any big effects yet.
At absolutely zero cost, time, or effort to them. You might think they should give them money for their effort, and I do, too, but you really can't own a potential gain. I believe it's really more of a shortcoming of our society that runs off of scarcity, artificial or not, than a shortcoming of file sharers or artists.
You don't need every child to have such parents. You just need the ones who can't tell fiction from reality to have such parents. I suspect that isn't many. People that don't have time to do so really shouldn't be parents.
Kindergarten is a bit young to be playing Call of Grand Theft Rape-fest 19 or whatever, and most kids who didn't get the difference between fantasy and reality understand it before they go on to first grade, but not all.
I disagree. How many of them do anything noteworthy because of what they have seen in fictional media? Not many, I believe.
I'd imagine its possible that some percentage of these kids NEVER really understand the difference
Bad parenting, and I'd estimate that that percentage is extremely small based on my own anecdotal evidence. Of course, again, the opposing side needs to perform a scientifically valid study for someone to state either as a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Supposedly, copyright is meant to encourage "innovation." I don't see how extending the length of the copyright beyond the author's death (the one who is supposed to innovate and create new works) just so the family members can leech off of his/her work is helping with that. With a house, there's no need to hand it over to other people. That won't really accomplish anything. But with copyright, it gives others a chance to innovate (supposedly) after you're gone.
We didn't talk about owning the potential gain, but owning the copy of their software.
Which the 'pirates' didn't take. They copied it, which in no way hurt the author, as far as I see.
Now go back and read the law, you should.
We're not talking about whether it is or is not illegal. We're discussing whether or not it should be illegal.
As either your a troll or an ignorant fool, and your telling me that your not a troll?
False dilemma. I just disagree with you. You should be careful with believing that you are absolutely factually correct, I think.
Nope your wrong your using their product that they used time and effort to create.
Which isn't really their fault that they used time and effort to create the product. Not only that, but you literally cannot own a potential gain. You never had the gain in the first place, and just because you think you should have it, that doesn't make it a fact. They literally take nothing from the artist when they merely copy data.
They own it, and there is a law about it generally called "copyright".
That was pointless. That's what's being disputed.
Ever considered to quit the trolling.
Labeling the opposing view as mere "trolls" doesn't strengthen your argument.
"Slipping right past them"? I'm sure that happens to some people, but even if they hear about it, will they actually care? Some of them even side with Sony.
If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything
Not really. You can do it one (or a few companies) at a time. Assuming the strategy works, of course. But then again, I think I do a good enough job of giving any of these companies my money.
Humans are social animals.
Most of them...
But the "rules" are purely arbitrary and idiotic, according to some. There's no reason that I see to be so hostile towards someone who simply doesn't shake hands or make eye contact. It's pointless, and that alone does not reveal anything noteworthy about their character. I don't believe it's a reason to instantly judge them.
not sure why you would call social functions "idiotic" since they evolve as surely as biological function, idiocy seems to be an innappropriate word
I used that word because I believe that judging people based on their lack of optimism in regards to social interaction (or certain aspects of it) is purely idiotic. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're "mean," that they're "liars," that they have some sort of mental disease, or that they can't do the job. That's the kind of behavior that I view as idiotic. It probably means that they are just introverts, or something similar to that.
Yes, but that is only because of the opinions of the general populace. I see no logical reason why either of them are factually important other than "because a lot of people like it that way." In other words, it appears to be general human idiocy. It's really their own fault if they are so (seemingly to me) sensitive that they can't handle not being given a handshake or not being looked in the eyes. Neither are required for non-arbitrary reasons.
A logical reason that doesn't revolve around the perceived idiocy of the general populace, that is.
Sure-- if you want to give off the constant, gut-level, and unshakable vibe of being either 1) creepy or 2) contemptuous of the person you're talking to.
Is there a better answer than "some people like it"? I was asking for a logical reason.
You can converse with people without giving them handshakes or looking them in the eye.
And they have more experience. Too bad many of them don't seem to be able to control their emotions enough to use it.
No idea of the importance of looking someone in the eye, having a good handshake
Might I ask how either of those are factually important? Many people seem to think that social interaction is factually important, but that really is their own opinion. Some people just don't like it or would rather be alone. I don't think there's anything wrong with that (unless they do want it but are terribly afraid).
These same people then proceed to whine about their lack of a social and love life.
That seems rather stupid of them.
be involved with the family on this momentous occasion
Personally, I wouldn't call a birthday party significant. Maybe she just found it pointless. Although, the tantrum you mentioned was rather illogical.
*IF* the sexual message was as allowed as much as the violence message, then I have to agree that our society strongly favors lack-of-censorship as a core value. But to see it supported only in a way that is congruent with 3rd world theocracies -- I see it as *bull*.
I agree with you that it is idiotic that they censor anything. It has never made sense to me how sexuality is viewed as somehow worse than blowing someone's head off (or saying a few swear words). I don't think they should censor any of this content.
As for torture -- it used to be that it *didn't matter* if they thought we would benefit or not
And yet we still don't know their reasons for believing in it.
No -- you are talking about that. I'm talking about the less noticeable problem of of US adults who have lower compassion
And do you believe that that is enough reason to ban/censor something (even just for children), assuming that violent media is the actual cause (of which there is only circumstantial proof at best)? It is likely that if it affects children in ways that even they cannot notice, it would do the same to adults, right? There's also the fact that violent media existed even before that.
The effect also seems quite small.
It may not be cause and effect, BUT, it is certainly worth noting that *IF* it were true, that such games caused a lowering of empathy, then it could be a **partial** explanation for the general lowering of empathy that behavior, in the past decade, would indicate has been rising in the US adult population.
I suppose so.
Alright. However, many, many people (children included) play video games. A grand majority of them do not become violent or murderers. The effect this has on them, if any, must indeed be fairly small in that case. Or so it appears to me.
but that it has an effect on them.
And yet the effect it has on some kids, if any, does not appear to be large or worth worrying about.
We are talking about kids at an age when there is ample evidence that they are still discerning what is 'real' vs. not.
And we're also talking about the fact that the number of kids who do anything 'bad' because of this is small. Crimes, violence among youth, and the number of children who play video games... the numbers simply don't add up.
As for you having no problem distinguishing what is real vs. not, good for you! Since you are not a young child, I would hope you'd be able to.
I meant when I was a child. I played video games constantly, even at the age of five. Violent ones. I had no problems realizing that movies, video games, and other media was mere fiction.
A large number of people (large enough that there wasn't a large 'incident') agreed with 'torturing' prisoners -- a major difference from attitudes during the 70's, for example.
They may believe that it will end up protecting more people in the end (which I disagree with). You appear to have not taken their reasons for believing this into account. Whether or not they're 'right' is an entirely different matter. They could be deluded for all we know. This doesn't necessarily prove that they are violent.
When would we see people challenging a minimum safety net for healthcare or other programs to help the needy?
Bad examples. There could be any number of reasons that people disagree with the policies. There's more reasons that just thinking that the people are lazy. They may very well have this "compassion" that you speak of, and yet, for whatever reason, do not feel the risk is worth it.
And it is indeed circumstantial. Especially since it happens twenty years after the rise of violent video games, not just a few.
It's not just for insults, -- but anything involving subjective reality.
I'd say that's only true for people who have severe problems distinguishing fiction from reality. I for one had no problem. Apparently quite a few people are the same way, though there's likely no way of telling how many at this point.
The harm done to one from video games, is, obviously, subjective.
And, likely, statistically low. Or at least, we haven't seen any big effects yet.
No but your using their product.
At absolutely zero cost, time, or effort to them. You might think they should give them money for their effort, and I do, too, but you really can't own a potential gain. I believe it's really more of a shortcoming of our society that runs off of scarcity, artificial or not, than a shortcoming of file sharers or artists.
You never own the copy you have
I don't know how anyone owns it.
Alright. But until someone links me to it, I'll remain unconvinced (and really, it would be quite the task to perform such a study).
You don't need every child to have such parents. You just need the ones who can't tell fiction from reality to have such parents. I suspect that isn't many. People that don't have time to do so really shouldn't be parents.
My question was: "How can you 'own' a potential gain?" How can they be hurt by 'losing' something that one cannot own?
Just as if you skip pay rent, you haven't stolen the apartment.
But you're using up their space and generally wasting their time. File sharers do none of that.
Kindergarten is a bit young to be playing Call of Grand Theft Rape-fest 19 or whatever, and most kids who didn't get the difference between fantasy and reality understand it before they go on to first grade, but not all.
I disagree. How many of them do anything noteworthy because of what they have seen in fictional media? Not many, I believe.
I'd imagine its possible that some percentage of these kids NEVER really understand the difference
Bad parenting, and I'd estimate that that percentage is extremely small based on my own anecdotal evidence. Of course, again, the opposing side needs to perform a scientifically valid study for someone to state either as a fact.