"A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees"
Again, your behavior online does not necessarily reflect upon your behavior in the 'real world'. Not hiring someone simply because of something they sent over the internet, not because of poor work performance, it simply idiotic.
"irrational or just plain stupid behavior."
"This persons Facebook profile claims that he is an atheist. I don't like atheists. I'm not going to hire him!"
"Irrational" and "stupid" really have no clear definitions, and this could easily be abused. Not to mention the fact that humans run on illogical emotions 94% of the time, so hardly any of their decisions could be considered 'rational'.
"but every drug user is willing to violate federal law of their own free will."
Federal law has nothing to do with right or wrong. Who is going to challenge these idiotic laws if not people? It's fairly obvious that drugs are only hurting them. Just because they've broken one law (an idiotic law in this case), that doesn't mean they'll break 'sensible' ones.
While you're correct, it's still completely idiotic to fire someone for their online actions alone. Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect upon your behavior in the 'real world'. You won't ever meet many of the people you converse with online, so you're less caring. They definitely need better ways of determining if someone is bad for their business other than them posting a silly comment online.
Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect on how you act in the 'real world'.
"That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time"
Considering that most humans run on illogical emotions, it's more like 6% of the time.
"their reputation"
Why should you care about what other people think of you? You should be questioning if your decisions were logical ones, not if other people didn't like them.
I pay for physical goods that aren't in infinite supply.
"and complaining when companies try and protect their revenue."
Sorry, but when it hurts legitimate customers in the process, it's not worth it. DRM, HDCP... it's all the same annoyance. Eventually (often extremely quickly) it will be bypassed by the pirates and it will only hurt the legitimate customers (some will either be angry and stop buying future media, and others may even turn to piracy because still want the media). In the end, their 'protection' only hurts themselves and actual customers, not pirates. So, yes, people are going to complain.
That's wrong. I don't trust any government with that kind of power. It will be abused, and I'll do everything in my power (what little I have) to prevent them from getting such a power.
"then given the availability of competition the customer will move on"
This must be some sort of joke. I have a single high speed isp in my area. That's it. Nothing else. If they implement this, it's either dial-up, satellite, or nothing at all. This would be especially bad for people whose jobs depend on having internet access and such. Competition cannot solve everything (not that you said it could). Really, something must be done about this.
As everyone knows, the best way to do that is to do absolutely nothing! Or, as the average person believes, it's best to give in to baseless propaganda talking about things that you don't even understand in the slightest while not even bothering to do any research yourself. Net neutrality is just some bad "mumbo jumbo!"
"You said "There is little I can do about it if I want to live in this society." "
If I want to own technology, a house, and have electricity, I must live in a capitalistic society, right? Most likely, yes. That does not mean that while living in this capitalistic society that I won't take advantage of some of its benefits (yes, I buy products from capitalistic companies from time to time, but that does not mean that I like the current system). I do advocate another system.
"You are clinging to a small technicality"
Small? There's a pretty big difference between saying that someone stealing a television that someone already owned (therefore depriving them of an item of value) is harmful and saying that 'stealing' profit (not just any money, your own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money is harmful.
"It is not my arguments which are foolish, it's your examples. It's like arguing that shooting in the streets is OK because shooting a shooting yard is OK."
How does that make my examples any less valid? Do they not raise a valid point? You can steal potential profit in any number of ways. You merely not buying a product could put someone out of business.
"and what do you think does it take to produce a book, movie or game?"
For the original, it took physical labor. For the copy, it took physical labor... from the pirate.
"Consumers are not under obligation to buy"
What a coincidence! Neither are pirates. It's odd how these artists are unaware that 'harm' is being done to them. If someone was stealing their money (and by "their money," I of course mean the pirates money), you'd think that they'd at least notice it at one time or another. But, they don't. To them, pirates are completely indistinguishable from people who simply didn't buy their product until they hear that someone effortlessly copied their product.
"I throw it around because your arguments are pure BS"
If you think that my arguments are pure "BS," then why would you resort to a "BS" argument of your own ("hypocrite" isn't an argument)?
Really? I am suggesting that people should be able to vote on each and every action (at least ones that will affect them) the government takes (with a reliable way to do so). Kind of like a direct democracy, only still with some checks and balances. If that fits under a republic, then disregard that comment.
As for my capitalistic comment, I merely meant to say that in the end, this is likely for monetary gain.
Actually, that is not always true. In countries like China, yes, it is. There are different forms of communism, however. That is what I was getting at.
I'm saying that if the people actually had more power (in that the government couldn't act on its own when enacting new laws/bills), there would likely be less corruption and things that blatantly violate the constitution such as this.
That's not what they're 'wishing' for. Unless you can prove that, under all circumstances, with 100% accuracy, that a communist country will always become like China, you likely shouldn't state it as a fact.
The "all other systems are impossible" and "this system will never work simply because it failed previously" mindsets are wearing thin.
"But, when you invade someones privacy there is also no physical damage yet you consider it wrong. Why? and why doesn't it apply to piracy?"
One, simply saying that I'm being hypocritical doesn't hurt my original point or change the facts (Tu quoque).
Two, in all honesty (even though I didn't want to get into this), I also don't believe in the concept of private property (but accept that it exists currently). If someone were to truly break into someones house without causing any damage (and I knew that in the future they weren't going to cause any damage, either), then I can agree that no wrong was done to the 'owners' of the house.
"Your claim is that absurd."
Let me restate my point that you haven't actually been reading or understanding any of my arguments or examples, as it is very clear now. Never before have I seen someone make so many comments without actually adding any new content.
"Really? Since when are you forced to consume entertainment?"
When did I say that I was forced to consume it? I certainly didn't. By consuming capitalistic media without paying for it, however, I'm not actually helping them either. I didn't say that all of their products were bad, or that the current system is good.
Just because someone doesn't like the way the current system is run doesn't mean they are a hypocrite simply because they live in it (not that calling someone a hypocrite will make someones argument(s) weaker, anyway).
"Of course you are doing harm. The artists have offered their work for sale yet you are taking it without paying for it."
The key word here is "taking." Absolutely nothing has been taken that they originally had. They've copied data.
"Will we have more art or less?"
That really depends on how much longer we live in this capitalistic society. If we stay in it, then yes, there will be less art. However, that does not mean that any harm was done, as nothing was actually taken. Let me illustrate exactly why this argument is foolish (and hope that you'll actually read and understand it).
What if everyone exercised their rights as consumers to not buy music any longer (but also didn't pirate it)? Will we have more music or less? Clearly the artist(s) have been robbed of potential profit here!
What if a previous customer of a business warns their friends (who were thinking about buying one or more products from that business) not to buy any products from that business for whatever reason, and they listen? Clearly damage has been done to the business by the informant (they've taken potential profit). If this sort of behavior (free speech and consumer rights) is allowed to continue, businesses could go under! It must be stopped.
"So under your twisted logic, people who work in something like customer service or lawyers or clerks o r any other job who doesn't produce anything physical shouldn't be paid, right?"
Oh, look, something that I've already responded to a few comments back. Are you sure you're reading my comments? Here: "Physical labor, and your boss agreed to pay you to begin with. Pirates never agreed to anything, and have no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply."
"I certainly did but I didn't see anywhere how you think we will keep having stuff like video games or books or movies under your system."
By changing to a less capitalistic society. That is the key. Either that or find a new way to make money somehow. Music (concerts and such) and movies (possibly movie theaters) I can understand, but I have no idea how video game developers or writers would make money (besides donations).
"You still haven't convinced me that you are nothing but a hypocritical leech on society."
You throw the word "hypocrite" around as if it will change basic logic itself and prove that something was actually taken, but as I pointed out earlier, even if I was a hypocrite, it does not make my argument any more or less correct.
Perhaps, but again, I'm just saying that if someone identifies themselves as a communist, it shouldn't be instantly assumed that they wish for a government similar to China's, for example.
"Will any non-totalitarian government ever choose communism in the first place?"
No, because in other forms of totalitarian governments, they can still use propaganda, fear, and artificial currency to control the masses (and often get away with it).
Likewise, experience really has nothing to do with age, rather how much intelligence you've acquired. People take in new and different information at different rates. Not all people will take in the same information or take in information at the same rate, for whatever reason. Saying that because someone is older, they are instantly more intelligent, is highly stereotypical (not that you did). It simply depends on the people that you're speaking of.
They seem to have covered for themselves. If an alien spoke to me somehow, I'd warn them of the overall stupidity of our race and tell them that the humans will likely just betray them in the end for whatever stupid reason they can come up with when they're done using them (and hope the aliens aren't the same way). Honestly, though, I think that any life form intelligent enough to build technology capable of traversing such huge distances would be more than intelligent enough to stay away from such an idiotic species.
Alright, then. As soon as the government became tyrannical? Or did they wait until it was too late? Was all or even the majority of the people rebelling?
That may be true, but it applies perfectly to this situation, even if it wasn't originally intended to be used for it. They are merely words that form a sentence which has an ultimate meaning, and what it is saying is completely valid, regardless of how it was originally used.
"Ugh, are you one of those who thinks that communism just hasn't been done the "right way" yet?"
No, I'm just someone who thinks that people shouldn't assume that when someone claims to support communism, it doesn't necessarily mean they want a government similar to China's.
"I'm going to make whatever is easiest for me or whatever I feel like making"
Not necessarily. In such a society, I'd imagine people would be able to choose a profession that they actually enjoy (in which case, there'd be no point in making poorly-made products). Also, as far as I know, machines are more than capable of producing quality shoes (and many other things), so people wouldn't need to do that anyway.
"Apply the same logic to those producing the food"
If someone did something like this with something as important as food, I would think that the community as a whole (not some tyrannical government) wouldn't want them leeching off of them while they purposefully produce food that isn't edible. In other words, the others would no longer support this person.
"To combat those random individualistic tendencies, decision making must become more centralized and people must be coerced into obeying the centralized authority."
Same as above. The community as a whole simply wouldn't support these people any longer (if done right).
As I said in another comment, however, I don't even support communism.
"Because we all know when we were 14-25 years of age, we were smarter than everyone else!"
Yes, such a mindset truly is foolish. The age of the person with said mindset, however, is highly irrelevant. Age has little to no bearing on ones level of intelligence, other than the amount of time the person has had to acquire that intelligence. Arrogance falls into the same category, and I've seen many, many people assume that they were more intelligent than everyone else (either because they have a small bit of knowledge in a particular subject, or because they simply assume that everyone else is intelligent), and I've seen just as many adults fall into this category as I have younger people.
Slashdot Mirror
"A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees"
Again, your behavior online does not necessarily reflect upon your behavior in the 'real world'. Not hiring someone simply because of something they sent over the internet, not because of poor work performance, it simply idiotic.
"irrational or just plain stupid behavior."
"This persons Facebook profile claims that he is an atheist. I don't like atheists. I'm not going to hire him!"
"Irrational" and "stupid" really have no clear definitions, and this could easily be abused. Not to mention the fact that humans run on illogical emotions 94% of the time, so hardly any of their decisions could be considered 'rational'.
"but every drug user is willing to violate federal law of their own free will."
Federal law has nothing to do with right or wrong. Who is going to challenge these idiotic laws if not people? It's fairly obvious that drugs are only hurting them. Just because they've broken one law (an idiotic law in this case), that doesn't mean they'll break 'sensible' ones.
While you're correct, it's still completely idiotic to fire someone for their online actions alone. Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect upon your behavior in the 'real world'. You won't ever meet many of the people you converse with online, so you're less caring. They definitely need better ways of determining if someone is bad for their business other than them posting a silly comment online.
Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect on how you act in the 'real world'.
"That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time"
Considering that most humans run on illogical emotions, it's more like 6% of the time.
"their reputation"
Why should you care about what other people think of you? You should be questioning if your decisions were logical ones, not if other people didn't like them.
There's no reason for a lot of entertaining things to be done, either. Better ban them all!
"never pays for anything"
I pay for physical goods that aren't in infinite supply.
"and complaining when companies try and protect their revenue."
Sorry, but when it hurts legitimate customers in the process, it's not worth it. DRM, HDCP... it's all the same annoyance. Eventually (often extremely quickly) it will be bypassed by the pirates and it will only hurt the legitimate customers (some will either be angry and stop buying future media, and others may even turn to piracy because still want the media). In the end, their 'protection' only hurts themselves and actual customers, not pirates. So, yes, people are going to complain.
"It's not that we don't trust our government"
That's wrong. I don't trust any government with that kind of power. It will be abused, and I'll do everything in my power (what little I have) to prevent them from getting such a power.
"then given the availability of competition the customer will move on"
This must be some sort of joke. I have a single high speed isp in my area. That's it. Nothing else. If they implement this, it's either dial-up, satellite, or nothing at all. This would be especially bad for people whose jobs depend on having internet access and such. Competition cannot solve everything (not that you said it could). Really, something must be done about this.
"and I'll defend it the best that I can."
As everyone knows, the best way to do that is to do absolutely nothing! Or, as the average person believes, it's best to give in to baseless propaganda talking about things that you don't even understand in the slightest while not even bothering to do any research yourself. Net neutrality is just some bad "mumbo jumbo!"
Likely as much as it takes to get basic internet access, which is something that most people use frequently, if not need for many things.
"You said "There is little I can do about it if I want to live in this society." "
If I want to own technology, a house, and have electricity, I must live in a capitalistic society, right? Most likely, yes. That does not mean that while living in this capitalistic society that I won't take advantage of some of its benefits (yes, I buy products from capitalistic companies from time to time, but that does not mean that I like the current system). I do advocate another system.
"You are clinging to a small technicality"
Small? There's a pretty big difference between saying that someone stealing a television that someone already owned (therefore depriving them of an item of value) is harmful and saying that 'stealing' profit (not just any money, your own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money is harmful.
"It is not my arguments which are foolish, it's your examples. It's like arguing that shooting in the streets is OK because shooting a shooting yard is OK."
How does that make my examples any less valid? Do they not raise a valid point? You can steal potential profit in any number of ways. You merely not buying a product could put someone out of business.
"and what do you think does it take to produce a book, movie or game?"
For the original, it took physical labor. For the copy, it took physical labor... from the pirate.
"Consumers are not under obligation to buy"
What a coincidence! Neither are pirates. It's odd how these artists are unaware that 'harm' is being done to them. If someone was stealing their money (and by "their money," I of course mean the pirates money), you'd think that they'd at least notice it at one time or another. But, they don't. To them, pirates are completely indistinguishable from people who simply didn't buy their product until they hear that someone effortlessly copied their product.
"I throw it around because your arguments are pure BS"
If you think that my arguments are pure "BS," then why would you resort to a "BS" argument of your own ("hypocrite" isn't an argument)?
Alright, I want to ask you an extremely simple question so that I can find out what you're even talking about. What are pirates taking?
Really? I am suggesting that people should be able to vote on each and every action (at least ones that will affect them) the government takes (with a reliable way to do so). Kind of like a direct democracy, only still with some checks and balances. If that fits under a republic, then disregard that comment.
As for my capitalistic comment, I merely meant to say that in the end, this is likely for monetary gain.
Actually, that is not always true. In countries like China, yes, it is. There are different forms of communism, however. That is what I was getting at.
I'm saying that if the people actually had more power (in that the government couldn't act on its own when enacting new laws/bills), there would likely be less corruption and things that blatantly violate the constitution such as this.
"But that is what they're wishing for"
That's not what they're 'wishing' for. Unless you can prove that, under all circumstances, with 100% accuracy, that a communist country will always become like China, you likely shouldn't state it as a fact.
The "all other systems are impossible" and "this system will never work simply because it failed previously" mindsets are wearing thin.
"But, when you invade someones privacy there is also no physical damage yet you consider it wrong. Why? and why doesn't it apply to piracy?"
One, simply saying that I'm being hypocritical doesn't hurt my original point or change the facts (Tu quoque).
Two, in all honesty (even though I didn't want to get into this), I also don't believe in the concept of private property (but accept that it exists currently). If someone were to truly break into someones house without causing any damage (and I knew that in the future they weren't going to cause any damage, either), then I can agree that no wrong was done to the 'owners' of the house.
"Your claim is that absurd."
Let me restate my point that you haven't actually been reading or understanding any of my arguments or examples, as it is very clear now. Never before have I seen someone make so many comments without actually adding any new content.
"Really? Since when are you forced to consume entertainment?"
When did I say that I was forced to consume it? I certainly didn't. By consuming capitalistic media without paying for it, however, I'm not actually helping them either. I didn't say that all of their products were bad, or that the current system is good.
Just because someone doesn't like the way the current system is run doesn't mean they are a hypocrite simply because they live in it (not that calling someone a hypocrite will make someones argument(s) weaker, anyway).
"Of course you are doing harm. The artists have offered their work for sale yet you are taking it without paying for it."
The key word here is "taking." Absolutely nothing has been taken that they originally had. They've copied data.
"Will we have more art or less?"
That really depends on how much longer we live in this capitalistic society. If we stay in it, then yes, there will be less art. However, that does not mean that any harm was done, as nothing was actually taken. Let me illustrate exactly why this argument is foolish (and hope that you'll actually read and understand it).
What if everyone exercised their rights as consumers to not buy music any longer (but also didn't pirate it)? Will we have more music or less? Clearly the artist(s) have been robbed of potential profit here!
What if a previous customer of a business warns their friends (who were thinking about buying one or more products from that business) not to buy any products from that business for whatever reason, and they listen? Clearly damage has been done to the business by the informant (they've taken potential profit). If this sort of behavior (free speech and consumer rights) is allowed to continue, businesses could go under! It must be stopped.
"So under your twisted logic, people who work in something like customer service or lawyers or clerks o r any other job who doesn't produce anything physical shouldn't be paid, right?"
Oh, look, something that I've already responded to a few comments back. Are you sure you're reading my comments? Here: "Physical labor, and your boss agreed to pay you to begin with. Pirates never agreed to anything, and have no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply."
"I certainly did but I didn't see anywhere how you think we will keep having stuff like video games or books or movies under your system."
By changing to a less capitalistic society. That is the key. Either that or find a new way to make money somehow. Music (concerts and such) and movies (possibly movie theaters) I can understand, but I have no idea how video game developers or writers would make money (besides donations).
"You still haven't convinced me that you are nothing but a hypocritical leech on society."
You throw the word "hypocrite" around as if it will change basic logic itself and prove that something was actually taken, but as I pointed out earlier, even if I was a hypocrite, it does not make my argument any more or less correct.
"Communism can't work"
Ever? Under any circumstances? Can you prove that with 100% accuracy? Not all communisms use a form of artificial currency, either.
"All the case studies appear to say 'No'."
Perhaps, but again, I'm just saying that if someone identifies themselves as a communist, it shouldn't be instantly assumed that they wish for a government similar to China's, for example.
"Will any non-totalitarian government ever choose communism in the first place?"
No, because in other forms of totalitarian governments, they can still use propaganda, fear, and artificial currency to control the masses (and often get away with it).
Likewise, experience really has nothing to do with age, rather how much intelligence you've acquired. People take in new and different information at different rates. Not all people will take in the same information or take in information at the same rate, for whatever reason. Saying that because someone is older, they are instantly more intelligent, is highly stereotypical (not that you did). It simply depends on the people that you're speaking of.
They seem to have covered for themselves. If an alien spoke to me somehow, I'd warn them of the overall stupidity of our race and tell them that the humans will likely just betray them in the end for whatever stupid reason they can come up with when they're done using them (and hope the aliens aren't the same way). Honestly, though, I think that any life form intelligent enough to build technology capable of traversing such huge distances would be more than intelligent enough to stay away from such an idiotic species.
Alright, then. As soon as the government became tyrannical? Or did they wait until it was too late? Was all or even the majority of the people rebelling?
That may be true, but it applies perfectly to this situation, even if it wasn't originally intended to be used for it. They are merely words that form a sentence which has an ultimate meaning, and what it is saying is completely valid, regardless of how it was originally used.
"Ugh, are you one of those who thinks that communism just hasn't been done the "right way" yet?"
No, I'm just someone who thinks that people shouldn't assume that when someone claims to support communism, it doesn't necessarily mean they want a government similar to China's.
"I'm going to make whatever is easiest for me or whatever I feel like making"
Not necessarily. In such a society, I'd imagine people would be able to choose a profession that they actually enjoy (in which case, there'd be no point in making poorly-made products). Also, as far as I know, machines are more than capable of producing quality shoes (and many other things), so people wouldn't need to do that anyway.
"Apply the same logic to those producing the food"
If someone did something like this with something as important as food, I would think that the community as a whole (not some tyrannical government) wouldn't want them leeching off of them while they purposefully produce food that isn't edible. In other words, the others would no longer support this person.
"To combat those random individualistic tendencies, decision making must become more centralized and people must be coerced into obeying the centralized authority."
Same as above. The community as a whole simply wouldn't support these people any longer (if done right).
As I said in another comment, however, I don't even support communism.
"Because we all know when we were 14-25 years of age, we were smarter than everyone else!"
Yes, such a mindset truly is foolish. The age of the person with said mindset, however, is highly irrelevant. Age has little to no bearing on ones level of intelligence, other than the amount of time the person has had to acquire that intelligence. Arrogance falls into the same category, and I've seen many, many people assume that they were more intelligent than everyone else (either because they have a small bit of knowledge in a particular subject, or because they simply assume that everyone else is intelligent), and I've seen just as many adults fall into this category as I have younger people.