In place of security theater you offer civil rights theater.
I offer no such thing.
Please, list the rights that you think have actually been lost.
And you'll do what, engage in newspeak in an effort to pretend as if it isn't happening?
The TSA is harassing people at airports. The government is collecting information on innocent people en masse and saying it's okay because a certain court rubberstamped the vague, unspecific warrants they brought to it. The government sometimes shoves people off to free speech zones. People near the border are constantly harassed. You may not recognize that some rights are being violated, but I certainly do, and no judge can tell me otherwise.
Many terrorists are bogeymen in the sense that there aren't nearly as many of them as some people would have us believe.
I do think the government should take positive steps to stop terrorists from violating the rights of its citizens
To me, "positive steps" are steps that don't involve the government violating people's rights to stop a threat, real or not.
The right to life doesn't stop with the government.
No, it doesn't, but government thugs can't violate people's other rights just because certain people are killing others.
People are actually trying to create more rights to shield terrorists engaged in terrorism.
I think they're just trying to stop innocents from being affected by surveillance and such. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the cowards who sacrifice their principles for safety.
The voters won't stand for it, and every law, including written Constitutions and unwritten
My point is that I believe this is a terrible law. It's exactly because laws are selectively enforced that it's dangerous. He acted as if the law isn't a threat simply because he hasn't heard of anyone who was punished for breaking it yet.
Actually, the artists are allowed to have monopolies. It's in the constitution.
I believe this was a mistake. That said, they still aren't "entitled" to them, as he put it.
If an author writes a book on the civil war, the author can't stop others from writing a book on the civil war.
They have a monopoly on the distribution of certain works.
A more accurate word is "property" because the law gives the artist much the same rights as a carpenter or a plumber.
Carpenters or plumbers can't control what other people do with their own property and can't employ censorship because they don't like what someone else is doing with their own physical property. If the data is on my hard drive, I consider it mine.
Being alive would mean little if you didn't have any of the other rights. I don't want any of your security theater if it means we have to violate rights to get it (and we do).
What about the right to life for the people being killed?
They may have such a right, but who is violating it? Not the government. I do not for a second believe the government should violate people's rights to stop the bogeymen. Your statement has no place here because it is not the government violating people's "right to life," but an extremely minuscule band of terrorist bogeymen.
You claim to be concerned about people's rights, but not theirs.
Clearly you don't understand the situation. Him being against the government violating people's rights to save people != supporting terrorists who kill people. I don't know how you think up this nonsense.
and in all my time living in the US (born here and with a couple of exceptions lived here all my life) I've never heard of anyone being arrested for downloading such material anyway.
That hardly improves the situation. That just means they can selectively enforce the law and infringe upon the rights of whoever they happen to be angry at.
I do know the difference, and that's why I believe those people were naive. How could anyone think that the government wouldn't abuse its power if we gave them such an extraordinary amount of it? Given the fact that history is rife with examples of abusive governments, these people are naive. It is not merely "speculation"; even before the Snowden leaks, anyone with a brain already had strong reasons to believe that it was highly probable that the government was abusing its power.
It's funny how your libertarian views are unable to cope with the issue of copyright in a way that makes sense.
The fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense at all.
By what reasoning should I be allowed to take your movie that you've spent millions developing, make thousands of copies, and hand them out to whoever wants one?
You're asking a question that can only be answered subjectively. To me, the better question is: Why do you feel entitled to a government-enforced monopoly that utilizes censorship and infringes upon other property rights? Why do you feel entitled to the ability to control how I use my own equipment to copy and transfer data?
Here's the thing: I believe it's a subjective matter. I can't say someone is absolutely wrong for desiring copyright, but neither do I believe they can say I'm absolutely wrong for valuing different freedoms than them (although we can definitely disagree).
I never bought the movie from you, I bought the right to watch it.
So says the law currently, but you should probably know that I disagree with it by now.
Thank you for agreeing about your general shallow depth of knowledge and insecurity in your stance.
You keep calling me a troll, but you constantly say such things. Who is the real troll?
Then again you managed to break "writing style, line by line citations, and over zealous defense" such that you interpreted it as me saying your writing style was line by line citations.
I actually didn't. The "line by line citations," as you call them, is merely an organizational method.
Your writing quality and reading comprehension are poor
Considering the straw men, I'd say that applies to you, as well. But really, that's rather subjective.
no one but reddit trolls back-and-forth like this on slashdot
Then you must be a Reddit troll, because whether you explicitly indicate it like I do or not, you're responding to certain points I make throughout my comments.
All you guys did was drive the individual artists out of business so these corporate bullies could step in and rake *all* the profits.
Is that really why it ("it" refers to music you don't like being produced and many people buying it) happened, or is that what you wish the cause to be?
People that boldly claim that their opinions will not waiver generally have very shallow depth of knowledge and are massively insecure in their stance.
People who say such things generally have very shallow depth of knowledge and are massively insecure in their stance. See how easy that is? I don't think you're even trying.
I said that because you're not saying anything new (and likely, neither am I). Discussions where one person tries to tell me that I don't actually believe what I'm saying in my heart always amuse me.
It's specifically why so many religious people rage against gays, argue in favor of young earth creationism, and.demand their opinions be respected while shitting on the opinions of others.
I do no such thing. Funnily enough, though, I have encountered more than a few religious people who claim that atheists are insecure and truly believe in god in their hearts, which is what I thought of when I read your first sentence.
Your writing style, line by line citations
No, I'm quoting you.
and over zealous defense of criminal activity all lead me to conclude you're trolling.
Seemingly acting as if the legality of something dictates whether it is or isn't morally right would lead me to believe you are a troll... but only if I hadn't encountered people who seriously thought such things in the past. If that's not what you're doing, then I have no idea what would possess you to continually mention the current state of the law like a mindless automaton.
I mean fuck, you even managed to say strawman, you're throwing buzzwords like frisbees.
That's hardly a buzzword.
Go ahead, claim ad hominem.
That seems inappropriate in this context since you're both insulting me and attempting to argue with me at the same time.
You keep talking in the frame of what "should" be, not what is.
Right. That's where change and discussion generally begin.
Idealism is cute, but the fact is that sites that stream unlicensed media are breaking federal law.
And 1 + 1 = 2, which is just as useless a statement to me in this discussion.
Your fallacy that copyright has lost is hilarious.
You said that I was throwing out buzzwords a moment ago, and now you're claiming that an opinion on the current state of copyright enforcement is a "fallacy"? Interesting.
You're basically arguing that because someone managed to break into your house and drink your beer, no house anywhere should be allowed to have locks.
That man of straw must be easy to beat down. My reasons for opposing copyright are separate from the issue of how successful copyright enforcement has been.
Yea, that's what every thief says.
You called me a "troll" a moment ago, and now you say this? Are you sure you aren't the troll, or do you honestly believe that anyone who seemingly defends one group of people must be part of that group?
I've already explained where you are ignorant, you are falsely equating the tools to defend property with the property itself.
It's nice that you're talking about tools to defend property, but that's not what I'm talking about at all; what I'm trying to say is that I think the very concept of copyright is flawed. You can bring up existing laws, say it's a tool, or write any number of things that people have replied to me with in the past, but I will likely not waver.
You claim the majority do not have absolute power, while technically correct you ignore the fact that any and all protections for minorities were enacted because of the results of a majority vote.
I don't ignore any such fact. I do not believe the majority should have absolute power in any sane country.
Indeed, the majority DOES wield absolute power.
Then why say that I'm technically correct?
By the way, how is it "violating people's individual liberties" to for a content creator to demand payment for their work?
It isn't. They can make all the demands they like, but it becomes an issue for me when they try to get the government to create monopolies that create artificial scarcity, encourage censorship, and infringe upon real property rights for them.
These so called "pirate" streaming sites are indefensible under virtually all global copyright and trade laws.
That's nice.
You were also unaware that you can use a gun to defend your life
Uh, no. We seem to be talking about very different things.
Stopping copyright infringement, like stopping home invasions, is a pipe dream. Therefore should we fire all the cops?
Interesting straw man. My point was simply that copyright has already lost; it is a very, very simple thing to do casually and many people simply don't have a problem with it.
You are wrong in your assertions and assessment of the situation. Copyright is just a tool to defend one's property rights.
What I'm saying: I believe copyright is morally wrong and that it infringes upon fundamental liberties. I don't care if you think it's a tool to defend 'property' (I don't think ideas and methods should be considered property to begin with) rights.
Just say your piece and be on with it then.
Already done. I can keep this up as long as I need to because I find your comments amusing, but you might just be wasting your time.
Clearly these works were generated in violation of the law
Are you thinking I only care about rights the law claims we have?
I really don't know what you're trying to say. How many times must I state that I disagree with many laws (at least the ones you mentioned) that are in effect today? Mentioning that the law is the way it is isn't going to do anything for you.
Intellectual property rights are legally no different than physical property rights.
A government enforced monopoly that attempts to create artificial scarcity, employs censorship, and infringes upon real property rights is legally no different than physical property rights? Somehow I doubt that, but in the event that you're right, that would simply convince me further that the law is wrong.
It's good that you agree with me that morally the law is wrong but to shoehorn our individual morals onto everyone else, subverting democratically enacted legislation in the process, is at least equally morally reprehensible.
No, it isn't. The majority do not have absolute power, and I have no problems going against them if I believe they're violating people's individual liberties. You say it is "equally morally reprehensible" to collide with them, but I do not for a second believe that.
The only real differences is that you can't lawfully shoot someone for hacking your website and stealing your source media.
Is that a different? I wasn't aware that you could even do that in real life (at least in many states). Unless you're trying to stop someone who threatens either your life or the lives of those around you, can you really legally kill someone just because they're trying to steal from you?
I have no idea what you think I'm losing here.
Not you, but copyright as a whole. Stopping copyright infringement is a pipe dream. If you took that to mean that I think you're losing the argument or something such as that, that's not what I meant.
You don't understand how is hosting a server that supplies without license or permission tens of thousands of copyrighted works for free to the masses is a seriously disruptive crime?
No.
but in the real world artists and copyright holders have property rights
Copyright and patents are nothing like real property rights, and indeed, they infringe upon real property rights.
that must be upheld in the same manner as your right to disallow strangers from sitting on your couch and drinking your beer must be upheld.
Hopefully you're not saying those are similar, or else I'm going to say that you don't understand copyrights or patents. I believe the current law is morally wrong (just like the TSA and all of the other disgusting laws and government organizations that people seem to passively accept) and nothing short of abolishing it will suffice, so no, I don't believe this nonsense must be upheld.
In fact, upholding it is unrealistic. You know this, don't you? You're already losing.
Pointing out the mostly illusory security of Tor is not being "part of the problem".
Did you read the part I replied to? I said you were part of the problem because you're encouraging this type of behavior from law enforcement just because they wanted to thwart the big bad pedophiles this time. In the context of this article, normal people's rights and privacy were violated, so I don't think there's anything to be happy about.
It wouldn't surprise me if even before now if the majority of exit nodes, or at least a large proportion of them were actually run by government agencies or firms acting on their behalf.
If that were the case, they'd probably be arresting more people.
If you use it to hit some paedo site, or to buy drugs, or launder money, or send death threats, or whatever then you're likely going to get caught sooner or later.
How likely? You can take other precautions besides just using Tor that would make it difficult to find you even if law enforcement ran many exit nodes.
Slashdot Mirror
Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable and part of the process of law enforcement.
But only if the warrants are constitutional.
Yeah, those other guys only want to do a host of other things to violate people's rights, that's all.
In place of security theater you offer civil rights theater.
I offer no such thing.
Please, list the rights that you think have actually been lost.
And you'll do what, engage in newspeak in an effort to pretend as if it isn't happening?
The TSA is harassing people at airports. The government is collecting information on innocent people en masse and saying it's okay because a certain court rubberstamped the vague, unspecific warrants they brought to it. The government sometimes shoves people off to free speech zones. People near the border are constantly harassed. You may not recognize that some rights are being violated, but I certainly do, and no judge can tell me otherwise.
Bogeymen don't have body counts, terrorists do.
Many terrorists are bogeymen in the sense that there aren't nearly as many of them as some people would have us believe.
I do think the government should take positive steps to stop terrorists from violating the rights of its citizens
To me, "positive steps" are steps that don't involve the government violating people's rights to stop a threat, real or not.
The right to life doesn't stop with the government.
No, it doesn't, but government thugs can't violate people's other rights just because certain people are killing others.
People are actually trying to create more rights to shield terrorists engaged in terrorism.
I think they're just trying to stop innocents from being affected by surveillance and such. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the cowards who sacrifice their principles for safety.
The voters won't stand for it, and every law, including written Constitutions and unwritten
Voters don't have absolute power.
My point is that I believe this is a terrible law. It's exactly because laws are selectively enforced that it's dangerous. He acted as if the law isn't a threat simply because he hasn't heard of anyone who was punished for breaking it yet.
Was this not obvious? I thought it would be.
Without copyright, not only will anyone be able to get my book for free
They already can.
You very likely don't have any hard scientific evidence that shows what the world would be like without copyright; it's all mere speculation.
Actually, the artists are allowed to have monopolies. It's in the constitution.
I believe this was a mistake. That said, they still aren't "entitled" to them, as he put it.
If an author writes a book on the civil war, the author can't stop others from writing a book on the civil war.
They have a monopoly on the distribution of certain works.
A more accurate word is "property" because the law gives the artist much the same rights as a carpenter or a plumber.
Carpenters or plumbers can't control what other people do with their own property and can't employ censorship because they don't like what someone else is doing with their own physical property. If the data is on my hard drive, I consider it mine.
The right to life if the most fundamental right
Being alive would mean little if you didn't have any of the other rights. I don't want any of your security theater if it means we have to violate rights to get it (and we do).
What about the right to life for the people being killed?
They may have such a right, but who is violating it? Not the government. I do not for a second believe the government should violate people's rights to stop the bogeymen. Your statement has no place here because it is not the government violating people's "right to life," but an extremely minuscule band of terrorist bogeymen.
You claim to be concerned about people's rights, but not theirs.
Clearly you don't understand the situation. Him being against the government violating people's rights to save people != supporting terrorists who kill people. I don't know how you think up this nonsense.
Clearly all your travelling done on the couch in front of Fox with your head up your arse - or on jaunts to Mexico with your spudnik bros.
What?
I don't want them to frighten young children (or adults that have the mental capacity of young children) at airports.
Why would you want them to frighten anyone? Children are not special snowflakes.
and in all my time living in the US (born here and with a couple of exceptions lived here all my life) I've never heard of anyone being arrested for downloading such material anyway.
That hardly improves the situation. That just means they can selectively enforce the law and infringe upon the rights of whoever they happen to be angry at.
I do know the difference, and that's why I believe those people were naive. How could anyone think that the government wouldn't abuse its power if we gave them such an extraordinary amount of it? Given the fact that history is rife with examples of abusive governments, these people are naive. It is not merely "speculation"; even before the Snowden leaks, anyone with a brain already had strong reasons to believe that it was highly probable that the government was abusing its power.
Do travel to crappy places in the world to realize that the standard of living in the US is still way higher than in a lot of places.
Being better than someone or something else is not the same as being good.
And I wonder what makes you come to a US website if everything is so screwed up, LOL.
The quality of a website that happens to be US-centric or hosted in the US has nothing to do with the quality of the US as a whole.
with everyone thinking/believing that their data is reasonably private.
Everyone? I think not. If anyone believed such a thing, they were simply naive.
It's funny how your libertarian views are unable to cope with the issue of copyright in a way that makes sense.
The fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense at all.
By what reasoning should I be allowed to take your movie that you've spent millions developing, make thousands of copies, and hand them out to whoever wants one?
You're asking a question that can only be answered subjectively. To me, the better question is: Why do you feel entitled to a government-enforced monopoly that utilizes censorship and infringes upon other property rights? Why do you feel entitled to the ability to control how I use my own equipment to copy and transfer data?
Here's the thing: I believe it's a subjective matter. I can't say someone is absolutely wrong for desiring copyright, but neither do I believe they can say I'm absolutely wrong for valuing different freedoms than them (although we can definitely disagree).
I never bought the movie from you, I bought the right to watch it.
So says the law currently, but you should probably know that I disagree with it by now.
Thank you for agreeing about your general shallow depth of knowledge and insecurity in your stance.
You keep calling me a troll, but you constantly say such things. Who is the real troll?
Then again you managed to break "writing style, line by line citations, and over zealous defense" such that you interpreted it as me saying your writing style was line by line citations.
I actually didn't. The "line by line citations," as you call them, is merely an organizational method.
Your writing quality and reading comprehension are poor
Considering the straw men, I'd say that applies to you, as well. But really, that's rather subjective.
no one but reddit trolls back-and-forth like this on slashdot
Then you must be a Reddit troll, because whether you explicitly indicate it like I do or not, you're responding to certain points I make throughout my comments.
All you guys did was drive the individual artists out of business so these corporate bullies could step in and rake *all* the profits.
Is that really why it ("it" refers to music you don't like being produced and many people buying it) happened, or is that what you wish the cause to be?
People that boldly claim that their opinions will not waiver generally have very shallow depth of knowledge and are massively insecure in their stance.
People who say such things generally have very shallow depth of knowledge and are massively insecure in their stance. See how easy that is? I don't think you're even trying.
I said that because you're not saying anything new (and likely, neither am I). Discussions where one person tries to tell me that I don't actually believe what I'm saying in my heart always amuse me.
It's specifically why so many religious people rage against gays, argue in favor of young earth creationism, and.demand their opinions be respected while shitting on the opinions of others.
I do no such thing. Funnily enough, though, I have encountered more than a few religious people who claim that atheists are insecure and truly believe in god in their hearts, which is what I thought of when I read your first sentence.
Your writing style, line by line citations
No, I'm quoting you.
and over zealous defense of criminal activity all lead me to conclude you're trolling.
Seemingly acting as if the legality of something dictates whether it is or isn't morally right would lead me to believe you are a troll... but only if I hadn't encountered people who seriously thought such things in the past. If that's not what you're doing, then I have no idea what would possess you to continually mention the current state of the law like a mindless automaton.
I mean fuck, you even managed to say strawman, you're throwing buzzwords like frisbees.
That's hardly a buzzword.
Go ahead, claim ad hominem.
That seems inappropriate in this context since you're both insulting me and attempting to argue with me at the same time.
You keep talking in the frame of what "should" be, not what is.
Right. That's where change and discussion generally begin.
Idealism is cute, but the fact is that sites that stream unlicensed media are breaking federal law.
And 1 + 1 = 2, which is just as useless a statement to me in this discussion.
Your fallacy that copyright has lost is hilarious.
You said that I was throwing out buzzwords a moment ago, and now you're claiming that an opinion on the current state of copyright enforcement is a "fallacy"? Interesting.
You're basically arguing that because someone managed to break into your house and drink your beer, no house anywhere should be allowed to have locks.
That man of straw must be easy to beat down. My reasons for opposing copyright are separate from the issue of how successful copyright enforcement has been.
Yea, that's what every thief says.
You called me a "troll" a moment ago, and now you say this? Are you sure you aren't the troll, or do you honestly believe that anyone who seemingly defends one group of people must be part of that group?
I've already explained where you are ignorant, you are falsely equating the tools to defend property with the property itself.
It's nice that you're talking about tools to defend property, but that's not what I'm talking about at all; what I'm trying to say is that I think the very concept of copyright is flawed. You can bring up existing laws, say it's a tool, or write any number of things that people have replied to me with in the past, but I will likely not waver.
You claim the majority do not have absolute power, while technically correct you ignore the fact that any and all protections for minorities were enacted because of the results of a majority vote.
I don't ignore any such fact. I do not believe the majority should have absolute power in any sane country.
Indeed, the majority DOES wield absolute power.
Then why say that I'm technically correct?
By the way, how is it "violating people's individual liberties" to for a content creator to demand payment for their work?
It isn't. They can make all the demands they like, but it becomes an issue for me when they try to get the government to create monopolies that create artificial scarcity, encourage censorship, and infringe upon real property rights for them.
These so called "pirate" streaming sites are indefensible under virtually all global copyright and trade laws.
That's nice.
You were also unaware that you can use a gun to defend your life
Uh, no. We seem to be talking about very different things.
Stopping copyright infringement, like stopping home invasions, is a pipe dream. Therefore should we fire all the cops?
Interesting straw man. My point was simply that copyright has already lost; it is a very, very simple thing to do casually and many people simply don't have a problem with it.
You are wrong in your assertions and assessment of the situation. Copyright is just a tool to defend one's property rights.
What I'm saying: I believe copyright is morally wrong and that it infringes upon fundamental liberties. I don't care if you think it's a tool to defend 'property' (I don't think ideas and methods should be considered property to begin with) rights.
Just say your piece and be on with it then.
Already done. I can keep this up as long as I need to because I find your comments amusing, but you might just be wasting your time.
Why not?
Because it's still censorship.
Clearly these works were generated in violation of the law
Are you thinking I only care about rights the law claims we have?
I really don't know what you're trying to say. How many times must I state that I disagree with many laws (at least the ones you mentioned) that are in effect today? Mentioning that the law is the way it is isn't going to do anything for you.
Well at least you're honest about your ignorance.
I find it unlikely that anyone is not ignorant.
Intellectual property rights are legally no different than physical property rights.
A government enforced monopoly that attempts to create artificial scarcity, employs censorship, and infringes upon real property rights is legally no different than physical property rights? Somehow I doubt that, but in the event that you're right, that would simply convince me further that the law is wrong.
It's good that you agree with me that morally the law is wrong but to shoehorn our individual morals onto everyone else, subverting democratically enacted legislation in the process, is at least equally morally reprehensible.
No, it isn't. The majority do not have absolute power, and I have no problems going against them if I believe they're violating people's individual liberties. You say it is "equally morally reprehensible" to collide with them, but I do not for a second believe that.
The only real differences is that you can't lawfully shoot someone for hacking your website and stealing your source media.
Is that a different? I wasn't aware that you could even do that in real life (at least in many states). Unless you're trying to stop someone who threatens either your life or the lives of those around you, can you really legally kill someone just because they're trying to steal from you?
I have no idea what you think I'm losing here.
Not you, but copyright as a whole. Stopping copyright infringement is a pipe dream. If you took that to mean that I think you're losing the argument or something such as that, that's not what I meant.
I am merely explaining why you are wrong.
Wrong about... what?
You don't understand how is hosting a server that supplies without license or permission tens of thousands of copyrighted works for free to the masses is a seriously disruptive crime?
No.
but in the real world artists and copyright holders have property rights
Copyright and patents are nothing like real property rights, and indeed, they infringe upon real property rights.
that must be upheld in the same manner as your right to disallow strangers from sitting on your couch and drinking your beer must be upheld.
Hopefully you're not saying those are similar, or else I'm going to say that you don't understand copyrights or patents. I believe the current law is morally wrong (just like the TSA and all of the other disgusting laws and government organizations that people seem to passively accept) and nothing short of abolishing it will suffice, so no, I don't believe this nonsense must be upheld.
In fact, upholding it is unrealistic. You know this, don't you? You're already losing.
How is that a seriously disruptive crime?
Pointing out the mostly illusory security of Tor is not being "part of the problem".
Did you read the part I replied to? I said you were part of the problem because you're encouraging this type of behavior from law enforcement just because they wanted to thwart the big bad pedophiles this time. In the context of this article, normal people's rights and privacy were violated, so I don't think there's anything to be happy about.
It wouldn't surprise me if even before now if the majority of exit nodes, or at least a large proportion of them were actually run by government agencies or firms acting on their behalf.
If that were the case, they'd probably be arresting more people.
If you use it to hit some paedo site, or to buy drugs, or launder money, or send death threats, or whatever then you're likely going to get caught sooner or later.
How likely? You can take other precautions besides just using Tor that would make it difficult to find you even if law enforcement ran many exit nodes.