Are you implying that both can't be oppressive? Even if other countries are more oppressive than America, that doesn't mean that America isn't oppressive.
There are plenty of history books and alas plenty of evidence...
But there is no actual scientific, objective evidence (that I know of) that copyright in this day and age is beneficial. Even if you can point to past societies (or even a few current societies) that didn't have copyright, chances are they were/are vastly different than our current society, so you can't actually prove much at all by using them as examples.
Which freedom do you give up if there is a copyright?
Really? What happens if a website is hosting copyrighted material without permission and someone in power decides they don't like it? Censorship ensues.
But that's just one freedom that is lost. I cannot use my own resources (money, materials, etc.) to replicate copyrighted material without first begging for someone else's permission; this, to me, is an infringement of physical ('real') property rights.
We all know that a world without copyright would not work.
How do you know any such thing? Do you have any objective evidence that that is true at all, or are you merely speculating what a world without copyright would be like? No, asking random questions and telling other people to come up with viable business models does not prove anything.
Also, even if that is true, I still view copyright and its ilk as a disease similar to 'solutions' such as the TSA; even if they work (and I do not believe they do), they require me to give up freedoms in order to make them work, and that, for me, means they're not good solutions at all.
I hope most here understand that people who create something like music or software deserve a chance to make a profit before everyone can just download it for free and give nothing back in return.
They do have a chance; if they fail, though, that is on them. I view government-enforced monopolies that encourage censorship and cause people to lose real property rights to be a disease.
Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses.
There already exist solutions for this type of garbage, even if they're not offered by ISPs. And really, none of this censorship nonsense is even necessary.
Remember when government used to be the tool of the people, the will of the people, to do their bidding on a larger scale?
No. In some ways, I think society has gotten better; in other ways, I think it has gotten worse. Really, the 'good old days' where we had a government that largely listened to the people and respected people's rights largely didn't exist.
How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the TSA has the authority to search your car while your not there.
Well, they also grope you or scan you with invasive scanners if you try to get on a plane.
Oh, and free speech zones and protest permits. Can't let people who say things we don't like be heard, now can we? If it's to keep us safe, I'll accept anything!
That's far from the only question; much of what they're trying to block is ambiguous. I guess some think that subjectivity simply doesn't exist and everything is set in stone, or more likely, everything that they personally disagree with will be blocked so they simply don't care.
no, i guarantee you that most of us think the government is retarded
Perhaps that is true, but your reasons differ. I think most people are naive and accept authority (look at the reaction to the PATRIOT ACT, for instance).
To see the true colors of all the politicians, look back to see how many people voted for the PATRIOT ACT. They knew they could get away with it then (because people are pathetic after disasters), so they pushed it through; those are their true colors.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are experiencing is a first world problem.
A nice little term often thrown out in an attempt to avoid actually taking action to fix real problems.
Are you implying that both can't be oppressive? Even if other countries are more oppressive than America, that doesn't mean that America isn't oppressive.
I agree it *should* be, but it isn't in the current legal system.
Of course not. That would be inconvenient to those in power.
so the fourth amendment can be respected without crippling our investigative abilities.
That's already possible without any invasive, useless, and overly-paranoid databases.
There are plenty of history books and alas plenty of evidence ...
But there is no actual scientific, objective evidence (that I know of) that copyright in this day and age is beneficial. Even if you can point to past societies (or even a few current societies) that didn't have copyright, chances are they were/are vastly different than our current society, so you can't actually prove much at all by using them as examples.
Which freedom do you give up if there is a copyright?
Really? What happens if a website is hosting copyrighted material without permission and someone in power decides they don't like it? Censorship ensues.
But that's just one freedom that is lost. I cannot use my own resources (money, materials, etc.) to replicate copyrighted material without first begging for someone else's permission; this, to me, is an infringement of physical ('real') property rights.
It is tongue in cheek for people school days "when they understood all that stuff"
So... probably never, then.
To certain groups of people. I also doubt that many people truly understood it.
We all know that a world without copyright would not work.
How do you know any such thing? Do you have any objective evidence that that is true at all, or are you merely speculating what a world without copyright would be like? No, asking random questions and telling other people to come up with viable business models does not prove anything.
Also, even if that is true, I still view copyright and its ilk as a disease similar to 'solutions' such as the TSA; even if they work (and I do not believe they do), they require me to give up freedoms in order to make them work, and that, for me, means they're not good solutions at all.
I hope most here understand that people who create something like music or software deserve a chance to make a profit before everyone can just download it for free and give nothing back in return.
They do have a chance; if they fail, though, that is on them. I view government-enforced monopolies that encourage censorship and cause people to lose real property rights to be a disease.
but do not be dismissive of the possibility that knowledge of methods can easily get people killed, perhaps not directly, but dead just the same.
Seeing as how terrorists are almost scarce to the point of nonexistence, I'd say we never had much to fear to begin with.
but please don't assume that it is a slam-dunk on the side of "freedom".
Why not? I'd rather people did; then we probably wouldn't be in this situation.
You do. Only a complete lack of response would show otherwise.
What if he didn't care about the topic itself, but did care about making his feelings about said topic known?
And then you hid your screen name, afraid that others will find out that you actually care.
What if he doesn't actually have an account? What if he isn't afraid of any such thing?
In some cases.
I see plenty of reasons. Whatever information corporations collect is typically given to the government without much of a fight.
It's okay as long as we catch the bogeymen.
Honestly it would be disappointing, even outrageous if the NSA didn't have the technical ability to collect this kind of data.
It really wouldn't; from my perspective, they're just a waste of tax dollars.
Hence ultimately you could blame not congress but rather the electorate.
Blame both.
Yes, I think that's an example of how things have gotten worse. I do not, however, remember a time when governments were sweet little angels...
Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses.
There already exist solutions for this type of garbage, even if they're not offered by ISPs. And really, none of this censorship nonsense is even necessary.
implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'.
Sounds good to me.
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
No.
Remember when government used to be the tool of the people, the will of the people, to do their bidding on a larger scale?
No. In some ways, I think society has gotten better; in other ways, I think it has gotten worse. Really, the 'good old days' where we had a government that largely listened to the people and respected people's rights largely didn't exist.
How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the TSA has the authority to search your car while your not there.
Well, they also grope you or scan you with invasive scanners if you try to get on a plane.
Oh, and free speech zones and protest permits. Can't let people who say things we don't like be heard, now can we? If it's to keep us safe, I'll accept anything!
That's far from the only question; much of what they're trying to block is ambiguous. I guess some think that subjectivity simply doesn't exist and everything is set in stone, or more likely, everything that they personally disagree with will be blocked so they simply don't care.
Thanks for letting us know that you are a teenager living with your mom who has never seen a enterprise datacenter in life.
Thanks for letting us know that you are a teenager living with your mom.
no, i guarantee you that most of us think the government is retarded
Perhaps that is true, but your reasons differ. I think most people are naive and accept authority (look at the reaction to the PATRIOT ACT, for instance).
The study indicates that the people HAVE spoken up to the city level, and that the city officials agreed.
Some people spoke up in some cities, yes.
To see the true colors of all the politicians, look back to see how many people voted for the PATRIOT ACT. They knew they could get away with it then (because people are pathetic after disasters), so they pushed it through; those are their true colors.