Why are the pirates always blamed for the shortcomings of a broken system? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how people who don't even take anything or harm anyone are being blamed for stealing (potential profit or otherwise)? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how artists (and others), in order to (presumably) make a living in said system, must introduce artificial scarcity through the use of scare tactics? I certainly do. It's not pirates that are the problem, it's the broken system which doesn't allow people to truly fulfill their dreams unless they have the object known as money, and instead of fixing said system, everyone in existence is blamed for its shortcomings.
Luckily, pirates aren't actually stealing the product (but they're still not customers), they're merely copying it. In order for it to be considered theft, someone must be deprived of something that they previously owned. That does not happen when copying data.
They're going after people who in no way, shape, or form inflicted any damages on them or even interacted with them. They merely copied their product. Instead of acknowledging the fact that the system is broken due to its insistence on utilizing artificial scarcity, they blame people who have nothing to do with said systems shortcomings.
A perfect world where people are hunted down for doing something that hurts no one so that someone else may profit off of them instead of fixing the broken system? That doesn't seem so perfect.
It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.
In other words, it essentially boils down to whether you're an indoctrinated drone or not. All that the government has proved lately is that terrorism works. The people lose many of their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security, and they just accept it.
But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.
By definition it can't be considered harmful because they're not actually interacting with the artist in any way (as in, the artist hasn't been deprived of anything). I don't care if piracy does affect sales, saying it's 'wrong' is like saying that telling your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) is wrong. After all, it could 'hurt' sales.
Besides that, don't you think a system that blames people who do no harm in the first place for the woes of artists, and practically forces said artists to introduce artificial scarcity, is flawed? Blaming people who in reality haven't deprived anyone of anything or hurt anyone instead of the system that is fundamentally broken is illogical. All of this effort should be going into making a system that isn't completely broken (that may be difficult, but in the end, it would be worth it), not trying to introduce artificial scarcity and blaming everyone in existence for the shortcomings of said system.
There is nothing wrong with persecuting "pirates" they fringe copyright and as such have always been eligible for persecution.
What the law says does not matter in regards to what is perceived to be 'right' and 'wrong'. The law has nothing to do with that. The law has been used to persecute and harass innocents before, just like it is being used to do now.
There is something wrong with persecuting persecuting pirates because they haven't really harmed anyone. As I explained above, this is entirely the fault of a broken system. If artists suffer merely because people aren't giving them money (but also not taking anything from them), which is a category that nearly everyone fits into, and they must likely introduce artificial scarcity in order to 'secure' future revenue, then the system that they live in is fundamentally broken. They put the blame on people who in reality have hurt no one instead of the system itself.
Unless I misunderstood something. In which case, I apologize.
Sorry, but point 5 only holds for as long as you're not negatively impacting other people with your bad choices.
It's funny that you say that because the stupidity of others is what is effecting me. The answer is education. It doesn't take years and years of experience to realize that downloading random executable files off the internet, for example, is a bad idea. I'm not going to suffer just because they decided to get a computer and then refused to learn anything about it when that is practically needed.
I dunno.. I think by the time we (hopefully..) get to the point in which the internet is safe for computer illiterate grandma, there might not be as much of a need for education beyond just how to use the computer and not sell your soul to Generic Messanger 285.
I've got a better idea. How about instead of dumbing everything down or forcing security on people, these idiots just learn how to use a computer properly? It's not like you have to have years and years of experience to merely realize the fact that you shouldn't download every single executable file off of the internet and run it. It really doesn't take that much time to at least learn not to do completely retarded things.
I'm still more worried about nuclear missiles than I am about whether the newest Harry Potter movie is available on a torrent.
A criminal is a criminal. Clearly the fact that you cannot see that means that you enjoy stealing potential profit from artists! I mean, sure, potential profit doesn't exist and it therefore can't be stolen, but it's still stealing to steal it!
You see, there's absolutely zero proof that pollution is unhealthy (I didn't look, but there isn't)! Besides, the planet is big, and who needs to worry about such things? Just keep dumping garbage in the oceans (it's big, so it's okay), keep using dirty, inefficient energy sources that aren't renewable (pollution is a myth), keep having children over and over (the planet is big and the only problem with overpopulation is a lack of space), and keep creating artificial scarcity so that we can maintain our capitalistic ways (after all, even though pirates aren't stealing anything or harming anyone, they're thieves, but that isn't at all a flaw in our capitalistic society). Surely nothing bad will come of any of that!
"The fourth amendment restricts *unreasonable* searches and seizures."
It also defines what is unreasonable. I was saying that it was unconstitutional. Taking away laptops and property at random, it says, is not reasonable.
"Property entering the country has been impounded for inspection since the earliest days of the country."
Whether it's been going on for a while or not, that still isn't following the constitution.
"The test is whether a reasonable person would think the purpose is important enough"
Reasonable? Only if they have actual evidence (but I suppose that's too much to ask for).
"and more to the point in this case whether he'd believe the *evidence* is strong enough to warrant the extent to which the person has been deprived."
Oh, we're talking about evidence, now? These people had none. It was almost random. They really had no evidence to suspect that he was going to do anything.
"The 4th doesn't proscribe *all* seizures of persons"
I never said that it did, just seizures or searches without warrant or actual reason.
Sounds reasonable to me. You're using up their bandwidth, and if you don't give them your money, they are losing out on profit that they could, potentially, have had! Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?
Oh, and artificial scarcity is good because it provides "incentive," and the fact that artificial scarcity needs to be promoted for certain goods which would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity in order to sustain our capitalistic ways is not at all a flaw in capitalism!
Right, because accepting bribes from people who likely have more money than everyone combined (at least more money than everyone who opposes them) is totally fair.
I don't care if you consider money freedom of speech, it has no place in a 'democracy' (this one is ruled by the rich).
Ah, okay. The next few words after that speak out against warrant-less searches. You can conclude (at least it's actually in the constitution and not made up on the spot) that that's what it meant by that.
"Did the founding fathers intend for "effects" to include electronic files?"
They used the very broad term "effects" instead of listing a bunch of technologies that the fourth amendment should reply to. You can easily assume that they were counting on future technologies, as you actually have a bit of evidence to back up that claim, but no evidence to back up the claim that they weren't. They might not have known specifically, but that's irrelevant.
That is a far more serious and permanent deprivation of liberty than the temporary loss of physical access to your laptop.
Uh, no. You can't just take someones property away. Not even temporarily. Again, the fourth amendment. They can't just make this stuff up (well, they can and they do, but it's not constitutional).
One might reasonably be deprived of one's laptop for a few minutes or even hours in service of some important public purpose
Important in this sense must mean whatever the government decides is important, because I certainly don't think this is important. I actually would like to follow the fourth amendment.
This is not reasonable at all.
It *is* in the era of electronic data.
Unless you were going around telling everyone about the data on your laptop, there is no reason they should be able to take it away to 'search' it, and the fourth amendment agrees.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are the pirates always blamed for the shortcomings of a broken system? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how people who don't even take anything or harm anyone are being blamed for stealing (potential profit or otherwise)? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how artists (and others), in order to (presumably) make a living in said system, must introduce artificial scarcity through the use of scare tactics? I certainly do. It's not pirates that are the problem, it's the broken system which doesn't allow people to truly fulfill their dreams unless they have the object known as money, and instead of fixing said system, everyone in existence is blamed for its shortcomings.
Luckily, pirates aren't actually stealing the product (but they're still not customers), they're merely copying it. In order for it to be considered theft, someone must be deprived of something that they previously owned. That does not happen when copying data.
They're going after people who in no way, shape, or form inflicted any damages on them or even interacted with them. They merely copied their product. Instead of acknowledging the fact that the system is broken due to its insistence on utilizing artificial scarcity, they blame people who have nothing to do with said systems shortcomings.
A perfect world where people are hunted down for doing something that hurts no one so that someone else may profit off of them instead of fixing the broken system? That doesn't seem so perfect.
Releasing information that was kept secret by a corrupt government makes someone a "douchebag"? Wasn't that Wikileaks' purpose in the first place?
It essentially boils down to whether you believe in the War on Terror or not.
In other words, it essentially boils down to whether you're an indoctrinated drone or not. All that the government has proved lately is that terrorism works. The people lose many of their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security, and they just accept it.
Free speech is causing harm!
I wouldn't be so sure. The Republicans are rarely, if ever, the ones introducing those bills.
Politicians love money. I doubt very many people would turn down the entertainment industries bribes. Here's one.
I'm not sure exactly how many they passed, but it's likely that they would bow down to the entertainment industry if they commanded them to.
But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.
By definition it can't be considered harmful because they're not actually interacting with the artist in any way (as in, the artist hasn't been deprived of anything). I don't care if piracy does affect sales, saying it's 'wrong' is like saying that telling your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) is wrong. After all, it could 'hurt' sales.
Besides that, don't you think a system that blames people who do no harm in the first place for the woes of artists, and practically forces said artists to introduce artificial scarcity, is flawed? Blaming people who in reality haven't deprived anyone of anything or hurt anyone instead of the system that is fundamentally broken is illogical. All of this effort should be going into making a system that isn't completely broken (that may be difficult, but in the end, it would be worth it), not trying to introduce artificial scarcity and blaming everyone in existence for the shortcomings of said system.
There is nothing wrong with persecuting "pirates" they fringe copyright and as such have always been eligible for persecution.
What the law says does not matter in regards to what is perceived to be 'right' and 'wrong'. The law has nothing to do with that. The law has been used to persecute and harass innocents before, just like it is being used to do now.
There is something wrong with persecuting persecuting pirates because they haven't really harmed anyone. As I explained above, this is entirely the fault of a broken system. If artists suffer merely because people aren't giving them money (but also not taking anything from them), which is a category that nearly everyone fits into, and they must likely introduce artificial scarcity in order to 'secure' future revenue, then the system that they live in is fundamentally broken. They put the blame on people who in reality have hurt no one instead of the system itself.
Unless I misunderstood something. In which case, I apologize.
The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy
I'm pretty sure the Republicans are right there with them on that one.
Especially because theft of 'intellectual property' is usually called 'espionage'.
It's a good thing that you can't actually steal "intellectual property," then!
Sorry, but point 5 only holds for as long as you're not negatively impacting other people with your bad choices.
It's funny that you say that because the stupidity of others is what is effecting me. The answer is education. It doesn't take years and years of experience to realize that downloading random executable files off the internet, for example, is a bad idea. I'm not going to suffer just because they decided to get a computer and then refused to learn anything about it when that is practically needed.
I dunno.. I think by the time we (hopefully..) get to the point in which the internet is safe for computer illiterate grandma, there might not be as much of a need for education beyond just how to use the computer and not sell your soul to Generic Messanger 285.
I've got a better idea. How about instead of dumbing everything down or forcing security on people, these idiots just learn how to use a computer properly? It's not like you have to have years and years of experience to merely realize the fact that you shouldn't download every single executable file off of the internet and run it. It really doesn't take that much time to at least learn not to do completely retarded things.
I'm still more worried about nuclear missiles than I am about whether the newest Harry Potter movie is available on a torrent.
A criminal is a criminal. Clearly the fact that you cannot see that means that you enjoy stealing potential profit from artists! I mean, sure, potential profit doesn't exist and it therefore can't be stolen, but it's still stealing to steal it!
You see, there's absolutely zero proof that pollution is unhealthy (I didn't look, but there isn't)! Besides, the planet is big, and who needs to worry about such things? Just keep dumping garbage in the oceans (it's big, so it's okay), keep using dirty, inefficient energy sources that aren't renewable (pollution is a myth), keep having children over and over (the planet is big and the only problem with overpopulation is a lack of space), and keep creating artificial scarcity so that we can maintain our capitalistic ways (after all, even though pirates aren't stealing anything or harming anyone, they're thieves, but that isn't at all a flaw in our capitalistic society). Surely nothing bad will come of any of that!
I forgot that corporations who have far more money than anyone else lobbying to get the support of politicians is completely fair, sorry.
This is a republic, and the sheer amount of corruption makes that very clear.
"The fourth amendment restricts *unreasonable* searches and seizures."
It also defines what is unreasonable. I was saying that it was unconstitutional. Taking away laptops and property at random, it says, is not reasonable.
"Property entering the country has been impounded for inspection since the earliest days of the country."
Whether it's been going on for a while or not, that still isn't following the constitution.
"The test is whether a reasonable person would think the purpose is important enough"
Reasonable? Only if they have actual evidence (but I suppose that's too much to ask for).
"and more to the point in this case whether he'd believe the *evidence* is strong enough to warrant the extent to which the person has been deprived."
Oh, we're talking about evidence, now? These people had none. It was almost random. They really had no evidence to suspect that he was going to do anything.
"The 4th doesn't proscribe *all* seizures of persons"
I never said that it did, just seizures or searches without warrant or actual reason.
Sounds reasonable to me. You're using up their bandwidth, and if you don't give them your money, they are losing out on profit that they could, potentially, have had! Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?
Economies can't work without thieves or corrupt politicians.
Or scarcity. It especially loves that, even if it's artificial.
Oh, and artificial scarcity is good because it provides "incentive," and the fact that artificial scarcity needs to be promoted for certain goods which would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity in order to sustain our capitalistic ways is not at all a flaw in capitalism!
Right, because accepting bribes from people who likely have more money than everyone combined (at least more money than everyone who opposes them) is totally fair.
I don't care if you consider money freedom of speech, it has no place in a 'democracy' (this one is ruled by the rich).
Ah, okay. The next few words after that speak out against warrant-less searches. You can conclude (at least it's actually in the constitution and not made up on the spot) that that's what it meant by that.
"Did the founding fathers intend for "effects" to include electronic files?"
They used the very broad term "effects" instead of listing a bunch of technologies that the fourth amendment should reply to. You can easily assume that they were counting on future technologies, as you actually have a bit of evidence to back up that claim, but no evidence to back up the claim that they weren't. They might not have known specifically, but that's irrelevant.
"They are supposed to interpret."
But not change the meaning of.
That is a far more serious and permanent deprivation of liberty than the temporary loss of physical access to your laptop.
Uh, no. You can't just take someones property away. Not even temporarily. Again, the fourth amendment. They can't just make this stuff up (well, they can and they do, but it's not constitutional).
One might reasonably be deprived of one's laptop for a few minutes or even hours in service of some important public purpose
Important in this sense must mean whatever the government decides is important, because I certainly don't think this is important. I actually would like to follow the fourth amendment.
This is not reasonable at all.
It *is* in the era of electronic data.
Unless you were going around telling everyone about the data on your laptop, there is no reason they should be able to take it away to 'search' it, and the fourth amendment agrees.