Surely! All of that "potential profit" that these artists/businesses could, potentially, have had is being stolen, even though nothing was actually stolen! This is almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of money that only existed in the future of an alternate dimension where the store made more money!
"Thus explaining why so many people use illegal drugs"
Please. You're just imagining all of those people. In reality, no one uses drugs anymore, murders anyone, or breaks any laws! All crimes have slowed down!
Stop right there. That is such a horrendous term. It makes it sound as if the property is actually physical and that you can 'steal' thoughts.
"Why are words and data subject perfectly acceptable to steal"
Fortunately, you can't steal words or data. How hard is it to understand? You speak like someone who doesn't know the first thing about technology (or chooses to use the same tired, illogical argument again and again) yet still browses this website.
"but if you car is stolen are you going to just shrug your shoulders"
When a car is stolen, is someone deprived of something? Yes. As in, they can't use their car anymore, now can they? Does this person still have their recipe? Yes. It's copying, nothing more, nothing less.
Now stop knowingly comparing stealing physical objects (thereby depriving someone of something that they owned) to breaking copyright law. At least use proper analogies.
"took this IP without credit or compensation"
Credit? Alright, I admit that it would be easy to credit them (and it would have been nice if they had). But again, this is sort of comparable to piracy. You absolutely cannot steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money.
Not to mention that every single person in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had. I can give you quite a few examples of this if you wish me to.
I have no problem with people making money for their creations, but pirates (or people who break copyright laws) aren't doing any actual harm. Again, the potential profit argument is illogical because every human on earth 'steals' profit that others could, potentially, have had. What is broken is our illogical capitalistic society that requires you to have paper in order to participate in it.
My string of letters that happened to form words which in turn formed sentences was 'stolen' from me! By stolen, I of course mean not actually taken from me! Here's another example of a worthless law where information is forced to be restricted due to worthless paper.
"Disregarding copyright completely, which is what you're suggesting, is just as self-serving a perversion of law as what the RIAA have been pushing."
Do you not understand that nothing is being taken in the process of pirating media?
"Every argument I've heard completely against copyright has been transparently self-serving"
That's the point. Acquire something that is in infinite supply by copying it without hurting anyone so that you may have free entertainment at the expense of no one.
"value of the copyrighted works"
Is perceived. However, the value does not matter since you're not hurting anyone by pirating anything.
Trying to use a "potential profit" argument is simply illogical.
"This idiot should have just settled when she was ahead to begin with."
Paying even a single cent to these people for an action that harms no one would be too much. Everyone accused should put up a fight. Paper is no substitution for freedom or justice.
Even forcing someone to pay a single cent for pirating a song would be too much. Pirates don't actually take anything or harm anyone. The "potential profit" argument doesn't make any sense because not only is it likely impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money, but even if it were possible, everyone would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (I can give quite a few examples if you wish). What's broken is this worthless capitalistic society that tries to interfere with actions that harm no one.
"Show me a case where the court declared something obscene, where it was not."
All of them. I don't find anything 'obscene'. Again, obscene is completely subjective. I may be only speaking of situations that don't yet exist, but this is insane. I'm talking about using such a subjective word in a law.
"One debatable case does not qualify as a "problem"."
One violation of freedom is a problem. It shows how flawed our system is to let that slip.
Sort of. I don't really care if the pornography is viewed or shown, but it qualifies as another crime (rape, etc) since the person was forced to do it.
"Because you chose to live in a country / political state with laws that affect these issues, that have been decided by the population."
I chose to? Oh, no. I was born here. Besides that, these laws are obviously worthless.
"combine with your fellow citizens to change the laws"
These fellow citizens consist of mostly the same group of indoctrinated drones that find swear words (strings of imaginary letters, just like any other word) offensive, so I don't see that doing much good.
"Quite a lot of people fall into a third category of moaning about laws they like but neither actually doing anything about getting those laws changed or moving out to another country / location, though."
If there was some sort of resistance already formed that was large enough and ready to overthrow the government, I would join in. Sadly, many people seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the government and that politics will solve everything.
For the last time, I'm talking about things such as indoctrinating them with your own religious beliefs and pointless personal opinions.
Also, it's not exactly indoctrination if you're giving them a choice.
"It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media."
Why? If you believe it doesn't make a normal person violent, then why? What is the point? It's just useless censorship. If you do believe that it makes normal people violent, but you don't have any evidence to support that claim, again, it's just useless censorship.
"there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt"
Why not? Again, pointless censorship.
"perhaps traumatically so"
Wow, yeah. All that violent media I consumed as a child traumatized me for life! I still can't get over those memories! No, in reality, I knew they were all works of fiction because it was obvious. Funny, that.
"It is also true that violent media does at least something"
Sorry, but there are many more studies which show the exact opposite. In many cases, viewing violent media lets of steam. I certainly didn't go off and act aggressive whenever I watched or played violent media when I was five, nor did anyone that I knew.
"Most obscenity statutes specify that something is obscene of the majority of the people in society might reasonably consider it to be obscene."
That's a great idea! Now let's strip away the rights of minorities if the majority decides it, too! 'Normal' speech is not what needs to be protected. Unpopular, vulgar speech even, does, however.
"courts have ruled them no longer obscene."
No words are 'obscene'. They are just strings of imaginary letters.
Even if that wasn't the case, there is no doubt in my mind that if one ISP restricted access to certain things (like bittorrent), the others would follow through with it as well to maximize profits. It's been known to happen many, many times in the past. The free market isn't magic.
What do you mean? If someone is willing to pay an extraordinary price for something that they deem a work of art, they can place whatever value on it that they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
"pirating is out of hand"
Surely! All of that "potential profit" that these artists/businesses could, potentially, have had is being stolen, even though nothing was actually stolen! This is almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of money that only existed in the future of an alternate dimension where the store made more money!
"Thus explaining why so many people use illegal drugs"
Please. You're just imagining all of those people. In reality, no one uses drugs anymore, murders anyone, or breaks any laws! All crimes have slowed down!
"constitutional principle"
Constitution? Please! Who listens to that silly old piece of paper anymore!?
"P2P users think what they are doing is theft"
I've noticed this trend myself, and it's truly sad when even pirates themselves have been deluded into believing this blatant lie.
"sets appropriate fines"
I'd suggest "nothing," since pirates don't actually take anything, but I know how unrealistic expecting that would be.
"So you write a book and its perfectly OK"
I don't have a book, but logically, yes.
"someone else's intellectual property"
Stop right there. That is such a horrendous term. It makes it sound as if the property is actually physical and that you can 'steal' thoughts.
"Why are words and data subject perfectly acceptable to steal"
Fortunately, you can't steal words or data. How hard is it to understand? You speak like someone who doesn't know the first thing about technology (or chooses to use the same tired, illogical argument again and again) yet still browses this website.
"but if you car is stolen are you going to just shrug your shoulders"
When a car is stolen, is someone deprived of something? Yes. As in, they can't use their car anymore, now can they? Does this person still have their recipe? Yes. It's copying, nothing more, nothing less.
Now stop knowingly comparing stealing physical objects (thereby depriving someone of something that they owned) to breaking copyright law. At least use proper analogies.
"took this IP without credit or compensation"
Credit? Alright, I admit that it would be easy to credit them (and it would have been nice if they had). But again, this is sort of comparable to piracy. You absolutely cannot steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money.
Not to mention that every single person in existence is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had. I can give you quite a few examples of this if you wish me to.
I have no problem with people making money for their creations, but pirates (or people who break copyright laws) aren't doing any actual harm. Again, the potential profit argument is illogical because every human on earth 'steals' profit that others could, potentially, have had. What is broken is our illogical capitalistic society that requires you to have paper in order to participate in it.
My string of letters that happened to form words which in turn formed sentences was 'stolen' from me! By stolen, I of course mean not actually taken from me! Here's another example of a worthless law where information is forced to be restricted due to worthless paper.
You're right. First one has to get caught...
"Disregarding copyright completely, which is what you're suggesting, is just as self-serving a perversion of law as what the RIAA have been pushing."
Do you not understand that nothing is being taken in the process of pirating media?
"Every argument I've heard completely against copyright has been transparently self-serving"
That's the point. Acquire something that is in infinite supply by copying it without hurting anyone so that you may have free entertainment at the expense of no one.
"value of the copyrighted works"
Is perceived. However, the value does not matter since you're not hurting anyone by pirating anything.
Trying to use a "potential profit" argument is simply illogical.
Anything that you can acquire without harming someone, of course. Which is only digital media as far as I know.
"This idiot should have just settled when she was ahead to begin with."
Paying even a single cent to these people for an action that harms no one would be too much. Everyone accused should put up a fight. Paper is no substitution for freedom or justice.
"How can a so-called "jury of her peers" possibly allow such a thing to happen?"
It's because they're indoctrinated drones, that's how.
Even forcing someone to pay a single cent for pirating a song would be too much. Pirates don't actually take anything or harm anyone. The "potential profit" argument doesn't make any sense because not only is it likely impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money, but even if it were possible, everyone would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (I can give quite a few examples if you wish). What's broken is this worthless capitalistic society that tries to interfere with actions that harm no one.
"Being a joke doesn't preclude people from reacting negatively to it."
Well, you can certainly conclude that people who do are extremely weak-minded.
"Show me a case where the court declared something obscene, where it was not."
All of them. I don't find anything 'obscene'. Again, obscene is completely subjective. I may be only speaking of situations that don't yet exist, but this is insane. I'm talking about using such a subjective word in a law.
"One debatable case does not qualify as a "problem"."
One violation of freedom is a problem. It shows how flawed our system is to let that slip.
"You already showed an example yourself."
Sort of. I don't really care if the pornography is viewed or shown, but it qualifies as another crime (rape, etc) since the person was forced to do it.
"there always is some idiot who takes
any freedom to the offensive level."
'Offensive' is subjective. Normal things do not need to be protected, 'offensive' things, however, do.
"If someone is inciting people to murder politicians I for one find that highly fucking offensive."
Seriously? Politicians? Pick a better example other than someone who isn't a corrupt idiot, man.
"Just call me a freedom-hating commie."
Not exactly, but I was more so talking about 'obscenities' such as 'swear words' or pornography. Idiotic things that don't endanger lives.
"Because you chose to live in a country / political state with laws that affect these issues, that have been decided by the population."
I chose to? Oh, no. I was born here. Besides that, these laws are obviously worthless.
"combine with your fellow citizens to change the laws"
These fellow citizens consist of mostly the same group of indoctrinated drones that find swear words (strings of imaginary letters, just like any other word) offensive, so I don't see that doing much good.
"Quite a lot of people fall into a third category of moaning about laws they like but neither actually doing anything about getting those laws changed or moving out to another country / location, though."
If there was some sort of resistance already formed that was large enough and ready to overthrow the government, I would join in. Sadly, many people seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the government and that politics will solve everything.
"Everyone indoctrinates their children;"
For the last time, I'm talking about things such as indoctrinating them with your own religious beliefs and pointless personal opinions.
Also, it's not exactly indoctrination if you're giving them a choice.
"It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media."
Why? If you believe it doesn't make a normal person violent, then why? What is the point? It's just useless censorship. If you do believe that it makes normal people violent, but you don't have any evidence to support that claim, again, it's just useless censorship.
"there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt"
Why not? Again, pointless censorship.
"perhaps traumatically so"
Wow, yeah. All that violent media I consumed as a child traumatized me for life! I still can't get over those memories! No, in reality, I knew they were all works of fiction because it was obvious. Funny, that.
"It is also true that violent media does at least something"
Sorry, but there are many more studies which show the exact opposite. In many cases, viewing violent media lets of steam. I certainly didn't go off and act aggressive whenever I watched or played violent media when I was five, nor did anyone that I knew.
"Most obscenity statutes specify that something is obscene of the majority of the people in society might reasonably consider it to be obscene."
That's a great idea! Now let's strip away the rights of minorities if the majority decides it, too! 'Normal' speech is not what needs to be protected. Unpopular, vulgar speech even, does, however.
"courts have ruled them no longer obscene."
No words are 'obscene'. They are just strings of imaginary letters.
Even if that wasn't the case, there is no doubt in my mind that if one ISP restricted access to certain things (like bittorrent), the others would follow through with it as well to maximize profits. It's been known to happen many, many times in the past. The free market isn't magic.
"Artistic *value*"
What do you mean? If someone is willing to pay an extraordinary price for something that they deem a work of art, they can place whatever value on it that they choose.
Pornography where people get hurt I can understand, but everything else I do not.
"There is no problem in the US right now with courts declaring things obscene."
Yes, there is.
It failed because of greedy corporations that just can't seem to get enough money.