If you don't have the social skills to keep yourself from getting fucked, people take advantage of you.
"Social skills" and "gullibility" are different things. An intelligent person would be able to analyze the situation at hand logically, or so I think. Some people merely prefer to be alone. There is nothing wrong with that, even if they don't understand social skills. Society needs to get over the fact that not everyone is incredibly pleasant to be around, and instead of approaching everything emotionally, as most people seem to do, they need to approach situations logically.
The point is that they're assuming he's guilty beforehand. Their assumption should be that he is innocent to begin with (not necessarily in their mind, but in the actual court case). Yes, in the actual court case, it is typically innocent until/unless proven guilty, but I am speaking of their mindset.
They don't need to 'prove' anything to charge you.
Yet another problem. It enables them to waste your time and money by making frivolous claims.
Since these are mostly civil cases the standard they have to meet to file charges is lower. Unfortunately so is the standard to 'prove' you guilty.
And that's exactly what I don't like. Neither of those make any sense. Just because it's money at stake instead of jail time, that does not mean that you should be able to get away with having less evidence.
Then don't pay for it. That doesn't make it "evil."
Then don't use Sony. Then don't mod a console made by Sony. This same thing could be applied to anything. Even if it doesn't make them 'evil' (whatever that means), it sure does make their console less appealing.
The point is that they're not following through with their "innocent until/unless proven guilty" ideal. They're the ones who have to prove their claims against you. And it's probably far easier and more common to use someone's wireless connection.
Who needs evidence!? If they were innocent, they'd be able to prove it! Being a civil suit changes everything and innocent until/unless proven guilty should no longer apply! That also goes for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Forget them all!
Plenty of children play video games. Yet most of them don't appear to think that murder, rape, or violence is okay, from what I've seen. I certainly don't, and I played video games since I was a child (at five).Violent ones. As far as I'm concerned, the effect is nonexistent.
I just grew up around boys who imitated Beavis and Butthead and girls who mindlessly followed every fashion trend of the day.
Imitating harmless things is quite different than being so heavily influenced by media that you believe that abuse is okay simply because of it.
implausible about the idea that a small child would emulate the attitudes of characters he sees in games or in TV.
I've never seen it happen. Again, the few that succumb to this can just be told by their parents that the media is not real and it's not intelligent to be so easily influenced by it.
There is no reason to censor it for the child and keep them in a bubble.
I mean that he will be more likely to treat them as objects than someone who has never been exposed to that attitude.
I'm not going to worry about the few people who act this way. It's certainly no excuse to censor everything for a child, as far as I see.
When he's a teenager, I'll let him play whatever he wants
You just said that the teenagers you met did the very said thing (imitating). Why the change of heart? He will clearly be influenced by a video game despite knowing that they aren't real, right?
although we may have an unspoken agreement that the porn stays hidden
The 'pirates' from limewire probably moved elsewhere. How do they know they didn't? Did they magically scan the entire internet to see how many music 'pirates' there are or something?
Ahh...moral relativism...As a parent, there are some behaviors I want to encourage in my children and some I do not.
Okay, but I suggest not stating it as a fact. That would be misleading.
The game isn't real, but the attitudes of the developers are. The attitudes of the people who play those games are real.
Yes, and? Someone who makes or plays a brutally violent game isn't necessarily violent. I'd be willing to bet that, more often than not, they aren't violent.
Are you sure?
I don't believe you can be sure on anything. However, countless things have been repeated to me that I still do not believe. Loss of potential future gain equals harm, violent media makes people violent, etc.
My argument is that a game where the hero rapes women may cause young children to believe that sexism is ok.
That's quite a great degree. I've never seen or heard of this, either. In any case, I'd call that person "insane" for letting themselves and their opinions be so greatly influenced by a mere game, child or not. Even most of them know better (and, if they don't, the parent can tell them otherwise).
Or perhaps it is a small effect.
Such a small effect that it can't be noticed? Either way, it is irrelevant and there is nothing to worry about, as far as I see.
There is no "right" or "wrong." There is only opinions about what is "right" and "wrong." At this current point of time, there is no evidence that I am aware of that proves otherwise.
If you think it's wrong, and I think it's right, do we just split the difference and call it a grey area?
Everything is a gray area, as for as I'm aware. However, that does not mean that that should stop you from doing what you think is "right." That doesn't mean that society still can't punish people that it thinks are "wrong." It just needs to recognize the difference between opinions and facts, I think. It's a minor correction, really.
Your opinion is wrong, and mine is absolute! But, that was quite a hasty generalization. Most of these "idiots" that you speak of don't actually believe that "society has the right to benefit and the creator can go fuck themselves." Many of them promote something else entirely in addition to copyright reform.
I'd also suggest being careful about stating absolutes. You may view their view as a "distorted view of reality," but just because you don't like the idea, that does not make it so (nor does that imply that they are correct).
Copyright Act provided for damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable.
They should have to prove each and every instance of infringement happened. They're just guessing. "Oh, they have lots of users, so therefore a very large number of infringements (we don't know the exact number and can't ever prove it) happened."
No. I meant the parents. I wasn't speaking to you specifically. Sorry about that. If you're just talking about it, that's fine. It only becomes a problem when someone tries to enact laws to ban/censor things for completely idiotic reasons (which you already said you didn't want).
You do know there's a copyright clause in the original consitituion right?
Yes.
If they didn't see a crash here, they probably didn't think there was one.
There certainly is. The wording that states otherwise in the constitution is nonexistent.
Even if they made the first amendment as simple as possible, I assume they had some sort of (* except libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, false advertising, death threats etc etc etc).
You can't assume that. There is no evidence for it in the constitution. All that is there is the text present in the constitution. It doesn't mention any of those things as not being "protected speech" (which is a term that doesn't make sense if you actually want free speech).
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't have the social skills to keep yourself from getting fucked, people take advantage of you.
"Social skills" and "gullibility" are different things. An intelligent person would be able to analyze the situation at hand logically, or so I think. Some people merely prefer to be alone. There is nothing wrong with that, even if they don't understand social skills. Society needs to get over the fact that not everyone is incredibly pleasant to be around, and instead of approaching everything emotionally, as most people seem to do, they need to approach situations logically.
and had a musical understanding greater than this kid's mathematical understanding.
Making sounds changes society as we know it!
The point is that they're assuming he's guilty beforehand. Their assumption should be that he is innocent to begin with (not necessarily in their mind, but in the actual court case). Yes, in the actual court case, it is typically innocent until/unless proven guilty, but I am speaking of their mindset.
They don't need to 'prove' anything to charge you.
Yet another problem. It enables them to waste your time and money by making frivolous claims.
Since these are mostly civil cases the standard they have to meet to file charges is lower. Unfortunately so is the standard to 'prove' you guilty.
And that's exactly what I don't like. Neither of those make any sense. Just because it's money at stake instead of jail time, that does not mean that you should be able to get away with having less evidence.
It's possible. I don't buy movies, music, or have any sort of cable TV.
Anything can be "evil" to someone. The definition is subjective.
Then don't pay for it. That doesn't make it "evil."
Then don't use Sony. Then don't mod a console made by Sony. This same thing could be applied to anything. Even if it doesn't make them 'evil' (whatever that means), it sure does make their console less appealing.
he could cheat
Could? I'd only ban them if they did cheat.
More like: "I made a claim without giving a citation, and when someone asked me for one, I told them to do their own research!"
Giving a citation should be the default decision. It saves people time.
normal social and emotional development
What if someone doesn't like either of those things? They're fairly useless.
The point is that they're not following through with their "innocent until/unless proven guilty" ideal. They're the ones who have to prove their claims against you. And it's probably far easier and more common to use someone's wireless connection.
Who needs evidence!? If they were innocent, they'd be able to prove it! Being a civil suit changes everything and innocent until/unless proven guilty should no longer apply! That also goes for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Forget them all!
And yes, as the legally assigned person have to 'prove' it wasn't they who committed the act that was traced back to their 'address'.
Forget innocent until/unless proven guilty! You're guilty unless you can prove otherwise!
It impedes upon my ability to believe everything that I hear without doing any actual research about it myself! Ban it immediately!
Plenty of children play video games. Yet most of them don't appear to think that murder, rape, or violence is okay, from what I've seen. I certainly don't, and I played video games since I was a child (at five).Violent ones. As far as I'm concerned, the effect is nonexistent.
I just grew up around boys who imitated Beavis and Butthead and girls who mindlessly followed every fashion trend of the day.
Imitating harmless things is quite different than being so heavily influenced by media that you believe that abuse is okay simply because of it.
implausible about the idea that a small child would emulate the attitudes of characters he sees in games or in TV.
I've never seen it happen. Again, the few that succumb to this can just be told by their parents that the media is not real and it's not intelligent to be so easily influenced by it.
There is no reason to censor it for the child and keep them in a bubble.
I mean that he will be more likely to treat them as objects than someone who has never been exposed to that attitude.
I'm not going to worry about the few people who act this way. It's certainly no excuse to censor everything for a child, as far as I see.
When he's a teenager, I'll let him play whatever he wants
You just said that the teenagers you met did the very said thing (imitating). Why the change of heart? He will clearly be influenced by a video game despite knowing that they aren't real, right?
although we may have an unspoken agreement that the porn stays hidden
Why is that?
The 'pirates' from limewire probably moved elsewhere. How do they know they didn't? Did they magically scan the entire internet to see how many music 'pirates' there are or something?
Ahh...moral relativism...As a parent, there are some behaviors I want to encourage in my children and some I do not.
Okay, but I suggest not stating it as a fact. That would be misleading.
The game isn't real, but the attitudes of the developers are. The attitudes of the people who play those games are real.
Yes, and? Someone who makes or plays a brutally violent game isn't necessarily violent. I'd be willing to bet that, more often than not, they aren't violent.
Are you sure?
I don't believe you can be sure on anything. However, countless things have been repeated to me that I still do not believe. Loss of potential future gain equals harm, violent media makes people violent, etc.
My argument is that a game where the hero rapes women may cause young children to believe that sexism is ok.
That's quite a great degree. I've never seen or heard of this, either. In any case, I'd call that person "insane" for letting themselves and their opinions be so greatly influenced by a mere game, child or not. Even most of them know better (and, if they don't, the parent can tell them otherwise).
Or perhaps it is a small effect.
Such a small effect that it can't be noticed? Either way, it is irrelevant and there is nothing to worry about, as far as I see.
There is no "right" or "wrong." There is only opinions about what is "right" and "wrong." At this current point of time, there is no evidence that I am aware of that proves otherwise.
If you think it's wrong, and I think it's right, do we just split the difference and call it a grey area?
Everything is a gray area, as for as I'm aware. However, that does not mean that that should stop you from doing what you think is "right." That doesn't mean that society still can't punish people that it thinks are "wrong." It just needs to recognize the difference between opinions and facts, I think. It's a minor correction, really.
Your opinion is wrong, and mine is absolute! But, that was quite a hasty generalization. Most of these "idiots" that you speak of don't actually believe that "society has the right to benefit and the creator can go fuck themselves." Many of them promote something else entirely in addition to copyright reform.
I'd also suggest being careful about stating absolutes. You may view their view as a "distorted view of reality," but just because you don't like the idea, that does not make it so (nor does that imply that they are correct).
Along with "think of the children," yes, that appears to be so. And, sadly, many people seem to accept it as a valid excuse.
All this will do is damage brands and end up turning fans against the record companies.
So the "'piracy' is bad, they deserved it" excuses won't work any longer?
How is it the law? They don't even have proof that that many infringements happened. They're just guessing because they think a lot of people use it.
Copyright Act provided for damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable.
They should have to prove each and every instance of infringement happened. They're just guessing. "Oh, they have lots of users, so therefore a very large number of infringements (we don't know the exact number and can't ever prove it) happened."
No. I meant the parents. I wasn't speaking to you specifically. Sorry about that. If you're just talking about it, that's fine. It only becomes a problem when someone tries to enact laws to ban/censor things for completely idiotic reasons (which you already said you didn't want).
Because someone said something about it not being protected speech in America.
You do know there's a copyright clause in the original consitituion right?
Yes.
If they didn't see a crash here, they probably didn't think there was one.
There certainly is. The wording that states otherwise in the constitution is nonexistent.
Even if they made the first amendment as simple as possible, I assume they had some sort of (* except libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, false advertising, death threats etc etc etc).
You can't assume that. There is no evidence for it in the constitution. All that is there is the text present in the constitution. It doesn't mention any of those things as not being "protected speech" (which is a term that doesn't make sense if you actually want free speech).