You're right. Clearly people can't differentiate between reality and video games (not that you, specifically, said that) so parents should have to buy their children the games instead of the children just buying them. There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games, and "parental supervision" is not a good reason.
"Ultimately, this all boils down to the parents monitoring the activities of their children and rearing their children in the way they best see fit."
Why? The only type of people who would want to do that are those who want to indoctrinate their children to believe false information. "Video games cause violence! People can't differentiate between reality and video games!" We don't need such indoctrination, we need choice. If the parents don't want to pay for the games, fine. But if the child has the money required, there is absolutely zero reason they should not be able to buy the game.
"If restricting violent video games is part of their parental ajenda"
Yeah, many parents do have an agenda. An agenda that revolves around indoctrinating their children with their own beliefs. It's an unfortunate truth.
Much like people that are against the government invading their privacy are criminals/terrorists, right? It makes sense because it's so true and an authority figure told me so!
"Yeah, if you love playing with cheaters and griefers. LOL"
DRM doesn't eliminate cheaters OR griefers. It hurts paying customers by restricting what they can and cannot do with the game. What gets rid of "cheaters and griefers," if you really want them gone, is a ban function for individual servers.
"I'm all for anything that forces parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing for entertainment."
Why? Are you one of those people that are so detached from reality that you believe that others can't differentiate between reality and video games? I could do that at five, and probably even younger if I would have had games.
No, what we need is more freedom, not censorship. Why should parents lock up their children in a bubble because the parents are idiots? There is no conclusive evidence (read: absolutely none) that proves that video games lead to violence, and yet they are still trying to pass this law, and idiots are still saying that parents, for no reason, should restrict what games their children can buy (provided they have money) or play. If the parents don't want to buy it for them, fine, but if the child has money, there is absolutely zero reason they shouldn't be able to buy a game where they play as an imaginary character. We don't need parents to indoctrinate children with garbage. Society does that well enough on its own. What we need is actual choice. What we need is to utilize basic logic.
Whoa! You must be a murderer and a rapist! Everyone knows that children can't differentiate between what we know as reality and entertainment! Everyone also knows that pornography is the leading cause of rape!
What good does this do? All it does is take away more freedoms for no reason. The people who are detached from reality are the ones that honestly believe that others can't differentiate between reality and a video game. Even at the age if five I knew that video games weren't 'real'. These laws are absolutely worthless, much like stores not selling certain games because of an AO rating.
"Some of the anti-piracy thing is due to ignorance about what is going on."
But most of it is due to lobbyists.
"On top of that many of the opponents of the piracy laws seem to think that breaking the law is a good thing."
Civil disobedience. Breaking the law isn't always a bad thing.
"That's why I have consistently said that if people want to change those laws they have to stop breaking them and start making cogent arguments to the right people."
Doesn't work if they're paid. Which, all of them either already are, or if they haven't yet been, they will after that.
Many, many people have used civil disobedience before. It is an effective way to show how idiotic a certain law is. Do you honestly believe that the majority will stop buying their favorite media so they can combat the entertainment industry? I don't, and talking it over will solve nothing since politicians are paid off anyway.
Let me rephrase: you're speaking of an almost nonexistent group of politicians. I haven't seen a politician that wasn't corrupt. They are all likely persuaded by money, which is why we are constantly seeing proposals for new anti-piracy laws.
"I suggest you take the first step toward stopping that problem and castrate yourself."
I don't see what good this will do. Will this somehow stop a majority of the population from reproducing? My point was that their habit of bringing children into this world (and in their terrible environment) when there are already so many is irresponsible.
"No, your not really inflicting harm. But that really isn't the point, since I'm not making an economic argument. I'm thinking more of the ethics of it. While it may not do direct harm to producers, piracy isn't really an ethical stance."
Why? Is it because the artists would have received money for their works if the pirate would have given it to them? If so, the same could be said about someone who simply didn't buy it. The artist would have received their money if they did, which would be 'nice'. I don't see the problem here.
"Though I'm still not sold on there being a complete lack of long-term economic harm."
There can't be an economic harm because nothing is taken. That's like saying (again) that competition between businesses, consumer choice, and word of mouth (as in, people who tell others not to buy a product for whatever reason) cause "economic harm."
"your paying for the developers time"
Which, when I pirate something, I don't take any of their time in the first place. I use my own time to copy the data. It sure would be 'nice' if everyone went out and bought the product, pirate or not. After all, they are paying for the developers' time. They must be hurting the developer since they didn't.
"And just because there is no immediate harm doesn't mean there isn't harm in the larger picture."
"Every single time you decide to exercise your right as a consumer to not buy a product, you're 'stealing' profit that the artist/business could, potentially, have had if you would have bought it. That's just one example. I have many, many more.
Imagine that someone recently bought a product from a store and decided to, for whatever reason, tell their friends (who were originally going to buy the product) not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to. They would have bought it otherwise (sort of similar to how a pirate might have if piracy didn't exist). Therefore, profit that the store could, potentially, have had was 'stolen'."
They can spout whatever they like at election time, but that doesn't mean they have to follow through with it. In reality, if the government is allowed to continue making so many decisions without the consent of the people, this blatant corruption will continue.
Slashdot Mirror
"I can think of one: child labor laws."
So they shouldn't be able to buy these games?
"As I understand the law, children aren't supposed to have money"
Something is seriously wrong, then. Again, there's no logical reason for this or this new law about games.
"And does that slow them down?"
You're right. Clearly people can't differentiate between reality and video games (not that you, specifically, said that) so parents should have to buy their children the games instead of the children just buying them. There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games, and "parental supervision" is not a good reason.
Also...
"Ultimately, this all boils down to the parents monitoring the activities of their children and rearing their children in the way they best see fit."
Why? The only type of people who would want to do that are those who want to indoctrinate their children to believe false information. "Video games cause violence! People can't differentiate between reality and video games!" We don't need such indoctrination, we need choice. If the parents don't want to pay for the games, fine. But if the child has the money required, there is absolutely zero reason they should not be able to buy the game.
"If restricting violent video games is part of their parental ajenda"
Yeah, many parents do have an agenda. An agenda that revolves around indoctrinating their children with their own beliefs. It's an unfortunate truth.
"(every non-online PC game)"
Even some that are. Some of them have figured out how to access online services while some people host private servers.
"It's not just $500; it's up to $2,000 to make a LAN's worth of decent gaming PCs because PC games tend not to have local multiplayer."
Not really the fault of the computer, however.
Much like people that are against the government invading their privacy are criminals/terrorists, right? It makes sense because it's so true and an authority figure told me so!
"Yeah, if you love playing with cheaters and griefers. LOL"
DRM doesn't eliminate cheaters OR griefers. It hurts paying customers by restricting what they can and cannot do with the game. What gets rid of "cheaters and griefers," if you really want them gone, is a ban function for individual servers.
"It's because the submitter hates video game sales restrictions"
What kind of brainwashed tool doesn't? Oh, wait, all of them.
"I'm all for anything that forces parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing for entertainment."
Why? Are you one of those people that are so detached from reality that you believe that others can't differentiate between reality and video games? I could do that at five, and probably even younger if I would have had games.
No, what we need is more freedom, not censorship. Why should parents lock up their children in a bubble because the parents are idiots? There is no conclusive evidence (read: absolutely none) that proves that video games lead to violence, and yet they are still trying to pass this law, and idiots are still saying that parents, for no reason, should restrict what games their children can buy (provided they have money) or play. If the parents don't want to buy it for them, fine, but if the child has money, there is absolutely zero reason they shouldn't be able to buy a game where they play as an imaginary character. We don't need parents to indoctrinate children with garbage. Society does that well enough on its own. What we need is actual choice. What we need is to utilize basic logic.
Yet the law is still terrible all the same. Even if it didn't cause an "exodus," censorship is and always will be a bad thing.
"EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence."
Whoa! You must be a murderer and a rapist! Everyone knows that children can't differentiate between what we know as reality and entertainment! Everyone also knows that pornography is the leading cause of rape!
"age restriction"
What good does this do? All it does is take away more freedoms for no reason. The people who are detached from reality are the ones that honestly believe that others can't differentiate between reality and a video game. Even at the age if five I knew that video games weren't 'real'. These laws are absolutely worthless, much like stores not selling certain games because of an AO rating.
"Some of the anti-piracy thing is due to ignorance about what is going on."
But most of it is due to lobbyists.
"On top of that many of the opponents of the piracy laws seem to think that breaking the law is a good thing."
Civil disobedience. Breaking the law isn't always a bad thing.
"That's why I have consistently said that if people want to change those laws they have to stop breaking them and start making cogent arguments to the right people."
Doesn't work if they're paid. Which, all of them either already are, or if they haven't yet been, they will after that.
Many, many people have used civil disobedience before. It is an effective way to show how idiotic a certain law is. Do you honestly believe that the majority will stop buying their favorite media so they can combat the entertainment industry? I don't, and talking it over will solve nothing since politicians are paid off anyway.
Let me rephrase: you're speaking of an almost nonexistent group of politicians. I haven't seen a politician that wasn't corrupt. They are all likely persuaded by money, which is why we are constantly seeing proposals for new anti-piracy laws.
"I suggest you take the first step toward stopping that problem and castrate yourself."
I don't see what good this will do. Will this somehow stop a majority of the population from reproducing? My point was that their habit of bringing children into this world (and in their terrible environment) when there are already so many is irresponsible.
They chose to give away their information. This is the fault of the user and no one else.
Right. That just makes it even worse.
Oh, so you're speaking of that almost nonexistent group of people. I see.
"Because the more children you have, the more likely one of them will grow to adulthood."
Why do they care about that? Trying to overpopulate the planet with their worthless genes is a selfish effort.
"Honest people still exist, so honest politicians can exist too."
True, but the amount of people that will discard their honesty in exchange for power and/or money is likely tremendous.
"No, your not really inflicting harm. But that really isn't the point, since I'm not making an economic argument. I'm thinking more of the ethics of it. While it may not do direct harm to producers, piracy isn't really an ethical stance."
Why? Is it because the artists would have received money for their works if the pirate would have given it to them? If so, the same could be said about someone who simply didn't buy it. The artist would have received their money if they did, which would be 'nice'. I don't see the problem here.
"Though I'm still not sold on there being a complete lack of long-term economic harm."
There can't be an economic harm because nothing is taken. That's like saying (again) that competition between businesses, consumer choice, and word of mouth (as in, people who tell others not to buy a product for whatever reason) cause "economic harm."
"your paying for the developers time"
Which, when I pirate something, I don't take any of their time in the first place. I use my own time to copy the data. It sure would be 'nice' if everyone went out and bought the product, pirate or not. After all, they are paying for the developers' time. They must be hurting the developer since they didn't.
"And just because there is no immediate harm doesn't mean there isn't harm in the larger picture."
"Every single time you decide to exercise your right as a consumer to not buy a product, you're 'stealing' profit that the artist/business could, potentially, have had if you would have bought it. That's just one example. I have many, many more.
Imagine that someone recently bought a product from a store and decided to, for whatever reason, tell their friends (who were originally going to buy the product) not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to. They would have bought it otherwise (sort of similar to how a pirate might have if piracy didn't exist). Therefore, profit that the store could, potentially, have had was 'stolen'."
Physical attributes. The most important!
"The less you are sure your kids will live, the more you'd want to make some replacements just in case." ...Why? What's the point?
They can spout whatever they like at election time, but that doesn't mean they have to follow through with it. In reality, if the government is allowed to continue making so many decisions without the consent of the people, this blatant corruption will continue.
"What really sucks is the influence of the public"
The public having influence? What world do you live in? All they have is their measly votes.