"right to control distribution of creative works."
I don't see how someone copying data harms anyone, and I certainly don't see how this is a 'right'.
"It's law, whether you (or I) like it or not."
That's liable to change if more indoctrinated drones who can't differentiate between stealing physical objects (thereby depriving someone of something) and copying data (which deprives no one of anything, unless you believe that potential profit exists, but basic logic disagrees with that notion) realize the truth.
"I may not agree with this decision, but I think there is a reason we don't directly vote on every issue."
It's because the current system is broken. Relying on corrupt candidates to do what isn't even the bidding of the people is, needless to say, a terrible idea. The majority shouldn't get whatever they want (as in, there still should be checks and balances by the government to ensure that the majority doesn't take away rights from the minority, etc), but they should have far more power than they do now, and the government definitely shouldn't be able to pass things such as this without their consent.
"In order to obtain a warrant to perform a raid on my house, law enforcement is required to show evidence that justifies their action."
I don't care if they do show evidence. This is the government here, and they will likely shut down any website that they (the MPAA/RIAA) are opposed to.
"You've just given yourself away as someone who's young."
No, I've just given myself away as someone who doesn't care about age. The straw men arguments are wearing thin. Same with the guilt by association arguments.
"with age comes experience"
With knowledge comes experience. If it was possible to download information to your brain and you downloaded an entire subject to it, you would be experienced in that subject, regardless of age. But, really, it depends on the person and how quickly they memorize information. However, being older does mean that you have had more time to memorize information, but that's the only relation. I agree that someone who has worked in a profession much longer than someone else is likely to be more experienced, but that goes without saying.
"Why do people throw darts at photos of people they dislike?"
They're illogical.
"No go away, boy, I'm done biting your troll."
Why does it seem so many people feel that someone having a different opinion than them means that they are a troll?
Well, since profit is on the line for them, it's no surprise that they purposely continue to cling to this inaccuracy. So, probably as many times as is needed for the indoctrinated drones known as the general public finally understand that nothing is being stolen.
I beg to differ. It's a waste of time and an illogical 'solution'. 'Pirates', as they call them, are merely symptoms of an already broken system. In actuality, they are not depriving anyone of anything (unless you think potential profit exists, but basic logic disagrees with that notion) or harming them. The solution is not to go after people who have done nothing wrong for personal gain, but to come up with a system that actually works. What is that system? I don't actually know, but that does not change the fact that the current one is terrible.
Well, I was talking about organ donation in general, and you can donate your body to science (which could, potentially, help people). In this specific case, however, they seemed to have been doing it for absolutely no reason. Yeah, in this case, I agree that it was pointless.
"The funny thing on Slashdot is that I still haven't found people telling about an alternative solution, I mean, a better solution than what the MPAA suggests."
So because people haven't given an alternate solution, that means we should enact this freedom-violating garbage for the sake of there being no other suggested solution even though it's clearly a terrible idea? The solution is to come up with a logical business model, not blame people who don't harm anyone or take anything for our current systems failures. Here's my original post on this, as I don't feel like posting it again.
What are they stealing? Certainly not the product itself, as they're merely copying that and depriving no one of it. Merely having the product itself, then, is irrelevant.
He must mean "potential profit," then. For one thing, basic logic states that for you to be able to steal something, it must first exist (potential profit doesn't exist). Second of all, if it was possible to steal potential profit, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone your money for whatever reason or by interfering with someones flow of profits. This effectively means that not buying a product from a store, for example, means that you 'stole' potential profit from the store. The store would have had more money if you would have given it to them and therefore would have been better off, which means, like a 'pirate' apparently does to artists (going by their logic), you have 'harmed' a legitimate business, and as such, people.
Artificial scarcity is bad. Don't blame the 'pirates' (who aren't taking anything or harming anyone) for a system that has been broken since the beginning, as this is merely putting the blame on someone who has nothing to do with it. You might as well blame everyone in existence. Instead, try to fix this broken system. But we all know that won't happen, as that would interfere with their flow of profits.
Also, they never described how (going by their logic, of course) websites that merely talk positively about 'piracy' (but don't contain any torrents or copyrighted materials) are 'stealing'. Funny, that.
"Unless you believe that Humans are 100% rational beings , and would see a corpse for what it is."
I wish.
"Attaching emotions to things is part of being human. Ignoring all non-rational dimensions of human nature is being illogical."
I didn't ignore it. I know that some people are illogical and would rather have the body rot in the ground or be turned into ashes rather than have it potentially help other people, but that's why I expressed my disapproval with that line of thinking.
Age is irrelevant. Not to mention that assuming something about a stranger on the internet that you don't even know is a little 'immature' in and of itself.
"Clearly, nobody you have ever loved has ever died."
That would have sufficed, but unfortunately for you, it is incorrect.
Do you really care more about the body than you did the actual person (memories, personality, etc)? Wouldn't you rather see the body be put to good use and potentially help other people than rot in the ground or be turned into ashes? It seems like that would be the logical approach. That is all I am saying.
Kind of a selfish wish they had if their body could be used to help others in some way, don't you think? I'd much rather know that the body of someone I used to know went to saving the lives of others rather than just rotting in the ground or being turned into ashes.
"Unless, of course, by your twisty trolling logic"
Not "trolling logic," just logic. I'd just rather see the body of someone dead (which means that they no longer need their body) put to better use than just rotting in the ground or being turned into ashes, if possible.
"There is a reason why people here are associating your attitudes with sociopathic behaviour."
Besides the fact that they apparently don't know what that or "trolling" means?
"When did we start excusing governments and other authority figures from law?"
The exact moment people stopped doing anything about it. Now the government just distracts them with other petty endeavors or counts on the fact that most drones care more about doing their little activities than they do freedom or privacy, leaving people who actually would do something if the opportunity presented itself outnumbered.
"With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation."
Nope.
"Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death."
I never said that they did. You should, however, care more about the memories of the person than the persons dead body which they will no longer have a use for. If it could be used to help others rather than just rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes, why not (again, I know that this wasn't the case here)? There's no sense to this.
"Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance."
I suppose being different is always a possibility, but I don't really fit into this criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
"The property that's being protected"
Protected from what?
"right to control distribution of creative works."
I don't see how someone copying data harms anyone, and I certainly don't see how this is a 'right'.
"It's law, whether you (or I) like it or not."
That's liable to change if more indoctrinated drones who can't differentiate between stealing physical objects (thereby depriving someone of something) and copying data (which deprives no one of anything, unless you believe that potential profit exists, but basic logic disagrees with that notion) realize the truth.
"Our voices should be heard louder than the people who represent us?"
The problem here is that they don't represent us. They rarely ever have, and they very rarely ever will.
"I don't even know where to start with that. Seriously bizarre way of looking at representative democracy."
Not really. This just isn't working.
"I may not agree with this decision, but I think there is a reason we don't directly vote on every issue."
It's because the current system is broken. Relying on corrupt candidates to do what isn't even the bidding of the people is, needless to say, a terrible idea. The majority shouldn't get whatever they want (as in, there still should be checks and balances by the government to ensure that the majority doesn't take away rights from the minority, etc), but they should have far more power than they do now, and the government definitely shouldn't be able to pass things such as this without their consent.
"It only has to show that is acting to protect a federally granted property right."
The property that is in an infinite supply and consists of mere data?
"In order to obtain a warrant to perform a raid on my house, law enforcement is required to show evidence that justifies their action."
I don't care if they do show evidence. This is the government here, and they will likely shut down any website that they (the MPAA/RIAA) are opposed to.
Thanks for the logical argument! You sure have me stumped, but only because I can't really reply to that.
"You've just given yourself away as someone who's young."
No, I've just given myself away as someone who doesn't care about age. The straw men arguments are wearing thin. Same with the guilt by association arguments.
"with age comes experience"
With knowledge comes experience. If it was possible to download information to your brain and you downloaded an entire subject to it, you would be experienced in that subject, regardless of age. But, really, it depends on the person and how quickly they memorize information. However, being older does mean that you have had more time to memorize information, but that's the only relation. I agree that someone who has worked in a profession much longer than someone else is likely to be more experienced, but that goes without saying.
"Why do people throw darts at photos of people they dislike?"
They're illogical.
"No go away, boy, I'm done biting your troll."
Why does it seem so many people feel that someone having a different opinion than them means that they are a troll?
"Sorry to break it to you, but most computer related jobs are quite boring."
That really depends on the person. Some people could find them boring while others could find them quite fun.
Well, since profit is on the line for them, it's no surprise that they purposely continue to cling to this inaccuracy. So, probably as many times as is needed for the indoctrinated drones known as the general public finally understand that nothing is being stolen.
"Enforcing IP protection is not."
I beg to differ. It's a waste of time and an illogical 'solution'. 'Pirates', as they call them, are merely symptoms of an already broken system. In actuality, they are not depriving anyone of anything (unless you think potential profit exists, but basic logic disagrees with that notion) or harming them. The solution is not to go after people who have done nothing wrong for personal gain, but to come up with a system that actually works. What is that system? I don't actually know, but that does not change the fact that the current one is terrible.
That's actually a good word to use in place of using "general public."
Well, I was talking about organ donation in general, and you can donate your body to science (which could, potentially, help people). In this specific case, however, they seemed to have been doing it for absolutely no reason. Yeah, in this case, I agree that it was pointless.
"The funny thing on Slashdot is that I still haven't found people telling about an alternative solution, I mean, a better solution than what the MPAA suggests."
So because people haven't given an alternate solution, that means we should enact this freedom-violating garbage for the sake of there being no other suggested solution even though it's clearly a terrible idea? The solution is to come up with a logical business model, not blame people who don't harm anyone or take anything for our current systems failures. Here's my original post on this, as I don't feel like posting it again.
What are they stealing? Certainly not the product itself, as they're merely copying that and depriving no one of it. Merely having the product itself, then, is irrelevant.
He must mean "potential profit," then. For one thing, basic logic states that for you to be able to steal something, it must first exist (potential profit doesn't exist). Second of all, if it was possible to steal potential profit, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone your money for whatever reason or by interfering with someones flow of profits. This effectively means that not buying a product from a store, for example, means that you 'stole' potential profit from the store. The store would have had more money if you would have given it to them and therefore would have been better off, which means, like a 'pirate' apparently does to artists (going by their logic), you have 'harmed' a legitimate business, and as such, people.
Artificial scarcity is bad. Don't blame the 'pirates' (who aren't taking anything or harming anyone) for a system that has been broken since the beginning, as this is merely putting the blame on someone who has nothing to do with it. You might as well blame everyone in existence. Instead, try to fix this broken system. But we all know that won't happen, as that would interfere with their flow of profits.
Also, they never described how (going by their logic, of course) websites that merely talk positively about 'piracy' (but don't contain any torrents or copyrighted materials) are 'stealing'. Funny, that.
"If there is some legal basis for immunity for the agent, I would love to see how it's worded."
Terrorism! They're all terrorists!
This'll stop all this terrorists! Actually, no, this just proves that terrorism works. I also love how the video was heroically removed!
Stop flying on those planes if at all possible. Seriously, don't put up with this blatant invasion of privacy.
"The only real difference is that in the States, law makers are more up to date with technological advancements"
Perhaps a very, very tiny bit, but the situation here (such as the 'war' on copyright infringement and for good net neutrality) is still bad.
"Unless you believe that Humans are 100% rational beings , and would see a corpse for what it is."
I wish.
"Attaching emotions to things is part of being human. Ignoring all non-rational dimensions of human nature is being illogical."
I didn't ignore it. I know that some people are illogical and would rather have the body rot in the ground or be turned into ashes rather than have it potentially help other people, but that's why I expressed my disapproval with that line of thinking.
Age is irrelevant. Not to mention that assuming something about a stranger on the internet that you don't even know is a little 'immature' in and of itself.
"Clearly, nobody you have ever loved has ever died."
That would have sufficed, but unfortunately for you, it is incorrect.
Do you really care more about the body than you did the actual person (memories, personality, etc)? Wouldn't you rather see the body be put to good use and potentially help other people than rot in the ground or be turned into ashes? It seems like that would be the logical approach. That is all I am saying.
Kind of a selfish wish they had if their body could be used to help others in some way, don't you think? I'd much rather know that the body of someone I used to know went to saving the lives of others rather than just rotting in the ground or being turned into ashes.
"Some governments fuck up really bad"
If "some" in this sentence means "all," then yes. The entire world is in a very sad state of affairs, but not because of this.
"Unless, of course, by your twisty trolling logic"
Not "trolling logic," just logic. I'd just rather see the body of someone dead (which means that they no longer need their body) put to better use than just rotting in the ground or being turned into ashes, if possible.
"There is a reason why people here are associating your attitudes with sociopathic behaviour."
Besides the fact that they apparently don't know what that or "trolling" means?
"(which I know wasn't the case here)"
"When did we start excusing governments and other authority figures from law?"
The exact moment people stopped doing anything about it. Now the government just distracts them with other petty endeavors or counts on the fact that most drones care more about doing their little activities than they do freedom or privacy, leaving people who actually would do something if the opportunity presented itself outnumbered.
"With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation."
Nope.
"Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death."
I never said that they did. You should, however, care more about the memories of the person than the persons dead body which they will no longer have a use for. If it could be used to help others rather than just rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes, why not (again, I know that this wasn't the case here)? There's no sense to this.
"Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance."
I suppose being different is always a possibility, but I don't really fit into this criteria.