It's the kids' responsibility. If the parents don't want to pay for these games, that's one thing. If the parents try to forbid them from playing the games at all (even if they purchased it on their own), that's another. People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game (likely none) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and don't need video games to give them ideas on how to carry out these violent acts. There's no reason to forbid them at all.
"I agree and it is certainly the right sentiment but as a parent of a 9 year old boy I like the fact that he cannot wonder into a game stop and just by something that is extraordinarily violent / something violent with heavy sexual overtones."
Why? What does it hurt him? Do you truly believe that only adults are capable of differentiating between what we know as reality and a video game? If not, then why do you care?
"Try as I might to teach him values that are in line with my beliefs"
Sounds like indoctrination to me. Not really surprising, however.
"Ultimately I want him to think for himself and make reasonable decisions about things like this with my guidance so I really don't have a problem with laws prohibiting the sale of games that are ultra-violent or ultra-violent along with sexual themes."
So, wait. You want him to think for himself while you try to force your own beliefs down his throat? Odd.
You must also ask yourself if any of these people have any evidence that supports their views beyond an illogical opinion. They'll planning on putting into place something that greatly affects other people, after all, and shouldn't be able to do that without sufficient evidence (read: there is none).
"Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games."
For what reason should they do that? Violent video games do not cause violence, period. Again, people who can't differentiate what we know as reality from a video game (very, very few people, if any) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and do not need video games to 'give them ideas' on how to carry out violence. If the parents refuse to buy the games, that's one thing. But they can't stop the kid from buying the games themselves with their own money. They aren't slaves.
"Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications."
Same as above.
"immature expectation of blood and gore."
I happen to like blood and gore in video games. It gives me the sense that I'm dominating my opponents in this likely fictional world. Just because I happen to like that and don't care too much for games without it, that by no means makes me 'immature'. I could say the same thing about your opinions.
"They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with."
Like you suggested the parents do to the kids? Odd.
"Me... How about you 'Monitor YOUR Fucking Kids'... Christ on a stick... God Dam Nanny State and a bunch of old bitches that have nothing better to do?"
Better idea: stop believing idiotic things such as "violent video games make people violent!" There is absolutely no need to "monitor your kids." People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game would have already been deemed "insane" by society, anyway. These people don't need to play video games to get their ideas.
I won't defend illogical arguments for personal gain. The "potential profit" argument really doesn't make any sense. I don't have any problem with people who buy software, but people need to recognize that nothing is actually being taken and the author isn't actually hurt, as they lost nothing that they already had. If you like the software, it's always nice to support the author by giving them money.
"This is what the music and movie companies are fearful of and rightly so - they just aren't going to get anymore revenue."
Yeah, they should be scared that they aren't receiving money from people who effortlessly copied data. Potential profit was taken from them in the future of an alternate dimension where their product was actually bought! They must be stopped! Capitalism at its finest.
"I'm one of these sad people who doesn't (knowingly) infringe copyright on purpose."
Good job?
"We don't do ebooks. They are an abomination. Books are to be printed on paper and read."
An abomination? That's laughable. What difference does it make if you read the text on a computer or on a piece of paper? Except that it's a huge waste of paper and that you need the computer to read them, nothing. There is no reason that books shouldn't be digital, and there's certainly no reason to call them "abominations."
"but I'm not stealing since they are licensed under Free and Open Source terms and conditions."
"We have gone from a society of doers to a society of press-releasers."
No, we've gone from a society of brainwashed tools to... a society of brainwashed tools. It's the same thing over and over. Ban porn, violent video games, violent comic books, and censor the internet! Censor swear words and naked bodies, too, because those "hurt the children!" These people who deem everything that they don't like "indecent" have always been around, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt wherever they go.
No, really, I don't. How about instead of just a poll, they have to actually explain, in a logical fashion, *why* sales of these should be banned for minors. If they don't, their little opinion doesn't matter. They're ready to strip away someones rights or ability to buy something because of their little uninformed opinion. The least they should have to do is provide some evidence to back up their idiocy. Video games don't, and never have, caused violence. The people that can't differentiate between reality and a video game would likely have already been deemed "mentally unstable" by society in the first place, and would have committed these violent acts, anyway.
I also don't support the idea that parents will police what their children buy, because video games never hurt anything. They aren't slaves. Not buying them something is one thing, but preventing them from buying something with their own money is another. Sorry, but you people are complete idiots.
The fact that these idiots are even taken the least bit seriously is appalling.
What? This still doesn't explain how someone copying data hurts you in the slightest. The fact that you think that it's your "intellectual property" doesn't change anything.
"YOU are out all that money"
So were the people in my examples. Your "potential profit" argument doesn't make any sense. If it were illegal to "steal" potential profit, everyone would be guilty of this. You can't steal something that someone doesn't originally have. Especially things that only exist in a future of an alternate dimension where they received more profits.
Oh, a "potential profit" argument, huh? You can't take something someone doesn't have. You can't take something that only exists in the future of an alternate reality where your product was bought.
Let's say that a potential customer of two businesses decides to go to one business instead of going to the other business to buy one or more products. If that person had gone to the second business instead of going to the first business to buy product(s), the second business would have had more money. They should have bought the product(s) from the second business. That's revenue lost to them. Therefore, both the customer of the first business and the first business itself stole potential profit from the second business.
Let's say that a customer who bought a product from a business decides that he/she doesn't like it, and decides to tell all of his/her friends that were considering buying this product not to buy it. Hearing his/her pleas, they ultimately decide not to buy it. If he/she hadn't decided to tell his/her friends not to buy this product, they likely would have bought the product. That's revenue lost to the business. Therefore, the informant who told his/her friends not to buy the product and the friends themselves (if they bought the product, the business would have had more money) stole potential profit away from the business.
No, because the first person bought it from you (you willingly sold it to him), and then the second person merely received a copy that the first person made (meaning he didn't steal an extra copy, he made a new one). Where's did anyone take anything in this situation?
They'll only be addictive to those who can't control themselves. *Anything* can be addictive, even food (specifically foods that taste good to you).
"so it can be the case that you really can't be able to properly "balance it out"."
That's really the fault of a few specific people who can't control themselves and doesn't negate the possible benefits that come with playing video games to those that can.
It's not one or the other. People don't have to constantly play video games, read, be physically active, or practice mathematics to receive their benefits. They can balance them out.
The thing is, this actually kind of makes sense, since you do have to react pretty fact. The "violent games make people violent" statements don't, because there's no evidence of it and no logical reason to conclude that they're true, or that people don't know how to differentiate between reality and a video game.
"Some Shuriken have a chisel point which certainly could be used as a cutting weapon"
So can pencils, pens, and virtually every objects in existence, including your hands (used as a weapon). Again, I could see disallowing explosives and such, but this is just idiotic. You can't take over a plane with pointy objects, or they might as well disallowing writing utensils.
What could he possibly do with a fucking shuriken? I could see them disallowing explosives... but pointy objects? This is just insane. Virtually *anything* could be used as a weapon, and you certainly can't take over a plane with pointy objects.
"But the freedom of speech does not mean you can say what ever you want and get away with it."
What? I don't believe that you know what "freedom of speech" actually is. Especially in circumstances where it obviously doesn't hurt anyone. By hurt, I mean put someones life at risk, not offend. That is the *only* time I can see censorship being used.
What about free speech? Oh, wait, that doesn't matter anymore! Wait! Some guy over the internet insulted me and spouted profanity! He must be banned from the USA. Or does that only count for the president (who is a huge baby who can't handle mere words)?
Wait, someone is stealing a DVD from someone else? If so, then yes, that would indeed hurt someone because they've lost something. If they're just copying data, then they're not taking anything. That would be called copying.
I'd say it's a good salary. The key is to not spend every last penny on a giant house and useless things that you don't need. Lots of people would love making that much money each year. While they obviously can make more money, that's still a good salary.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's the parent's responsibility"
It's the kids' responsibility. If the parents don't want to pay for these games, that's one thing. If the parents try to forbid them from playing the games at all (even if they purchased it on their own), that's another. People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game (likely none) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and don't need video games to give them ideas on how to carry out these violent acts. There's no reason to forbid them at all.
"I agree and it is certainly the right sentiment but as a parent of a 9 year old boy I like the fact that he cannot wonder into a game stop and just by something that is extraordinarily violent / something violent with heavy sexual overtones."
Why? What does it hurt him? Do you truly believe that only adults are capable of differentiating between what we know as reality and a video game? If not, then why do you care?
"Try as I might to teach him values that are in line with my beliefs"
Sounds like indoctrination to me. Not really surprising, however.
"Ultimately I want him to think for himself and make reasonable decisions about things like this with my guidance so I really don't have a problem with laws prohibiting the sale of games that are ultra-violent or ultra-violent along with sexual themes."
So, wait. You want him to think for himself while you try to force your own beliefs down his throat? Odd.
You must also ask yourself if any of these people have any evidence that supports their views beyond an illogical opinion. They'll planning on putting into place something that greatly affects other people, after all, and shouldn't be able to do that without sufficient evidence (read: there is none).
"Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games."
For what reason should they do that? Violent video games do not cause violence, period. Again, people who can't differentiate what we know as reality from a video game (very, very few people, if any) would have already been deemed 'insane' by society, and do not need video games to 'give them ideas' on how to carry out violence. If the parents refuse to buy the games, that's one thing. But they can't stop the kid from buying the games themselves with their own money. They aren't slaves.
"Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications."
Same as above.
"immature expectation of blood and gore."
I happen to like blood and gore in video games. It gives me the sense that I'm dominating my opponents in this likely fictional world. Just because I happen to like that and don't care too much for games without it, that by no means makes me 'immature'. I could say the same thing about your opinions.
"They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with."
Like you suggested the parents do to the kids? Odd.
"Me... How about you 'Monitor YOUR Fucking Kids'... Christ on a stick...
God Dam Nanny State and a bunch of old bitches that have nothing better to do?"
Better idea: stop believing idiotic things such as "violent video games make people violent!" There is absolutely no need to "monitor your kids." People who can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game would have already been deemed "insane" by society, anyway. These people don't need to play video games to get their ideas.
I won't defend illogical arguments for personal gain. The "potential profit" argument really doesn't make any sense. I don't have any problem with people who buy software, but people need to recognize that nothing is actually being taken and the author isn't actually hurt, as they lost nothing that they already had. If you like the software, it's always nice to support the author by giving them money.
"This is what the music and movie companies are fearful of and rightly so - they just aren't going to get anymore revenue."
Yeah, they should be scared that they aren't receiving money from people who effortlessly copied data. Potential profit was taken from them in the future of an alternate dimension where their product was actually bought! They must be stopped! Capitalism at its finest.
"I'm one of these sad people who doesn't (knowingly) infringe copyright on purpose."
Good job?
"We don't do ebooks. They are an abomination. Books are to be printed on paper and read."
An abomination? That's laughable. What difference does it make if you read the text on a computer or on a piece of paper? Except that it's a huge waste of paper and that you need the computer to read them, nothing. There is no reason that books shouldn't be digital, and there's certainly no reason to call them "abominations."
"but I'm not stealing since they are licensed under Free and Open Source terms and conditions."
Pirates don't steal anything in the first place.
"We have gone from a society of doers to a society of press-releasers."
No, we've gone from a society of brainwashed tools to... a society of brainwashed tools. It's the same thing over and over. Ban porn, violent video games, violent comic books, and censor the internet! Censor swear words and naked bodies, too, because those "hurt the children!" These people who deem everything that they don't like "indecent" have always been around, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt wherever they go.
No, really, I don't. How about instead of just a poll, they have to actually explain, in a logical fashion, *why* sales of these should be banned for minors. If they don't, their little opinion doesn't matter. They're ready to strip away someones rights or ability to buy something because of their little uninformed opinion. The least they should have to do is provide some evidence to back up their idiocy. Video games don't, and never have, caused violence. The people that can't differentiate between reality and a video game would likely have already been deemed "mentally unstable" by society in the first place, and would have committed these violent acts, anyway.
I also don't support the idea that parents will police what their children buy, because video games never hurt anything. They aren't slaves. Not buying them something is one thing, but preventing them from buying something with their own money is another. Sorry, but you people are complete idiots.
The fact that these idiots are even taken the least bit seriously is appalling.
What? This still doesn't explain how someone copying data hurts you in the slightest. The fact that you think that it's your "intellectual property" doesn't change anything.
"YOU are out all that money"
So were the people in my examples. Your "potential profit" argument doesn't make any sense. If it were illegal to "steal" potential profit, everyone would be guilty of this. You can't steal something that someone doesn't originally have. Especially things that only exist in a future of an alternate dimension where they received more profits.
Oh, a "potential profit" argument, huh? You can't take something someone doesn't have. You can't take something that only exists in the future of an alternate reality where your product was bought.
Let's say that a potential customer of two businesses decides to go to one business instead of going to the other business to buy one or more products. If that person had gone to the second business instead of going to the first business to buy product(s), the second business would have had more money. They should have bought the product(s) from the second business. That's revenue lost to them. Therefore, both the customer of the first business and the first business itself stole potential profit from the second business.
Let's say that a customer who bought a product from a business decides that he/she doesn't like it, and decides to tell all of his/her friends that were considering buying this product not to buy it. Hearing his/her pleas, they ultimately decide not to buy it. If he/she hadn't decided to tell his/her friends not to buy this product, they likely would have bought the product. That's revenue lost to the business. Therefore, the informant who told his/her friends not to buy the product and the friends themselves (if they bought the product, the business would have had more money) stole potential profit away from the business.
No, because the first person bought it from you (you willingly sold it to him), and then the second person merely received a copy that the first person made (meaning he didn't steal an extra copy, he made a new one). Where's did anyone take anything in this situation?
"videogames are designed to be adictive"
They'll only be addictive to those who can't control themselves. *Anything* can be addictive, even food (specifically foods that taste good to you).
"so it can be the case that you really can't be able to properly "balance it out"."
That's really the fault of a few specific people who can't control themselves and doesn't negate the possible benefits that come with playing video games to those that can.
It's not one or the other. People don't have to constantly play video games, read, be physically active, or practice mathematics to receive their benefits. They can balance them out.
The thing is, this actually kind of makes sense, since you do have to react pretty fact. The "violent games make people violent" statements don't, because there's no evidence of it and no logical reason to conclude that they're true, or that people don't know how to differentiate between reality and a video game.
"Some Shuriken have a chisel point which certainly could be used as a cutting weapon"
So can pencils, pens, and virtually every objects in existence, including your hands (used as a weapon). Again, I could see disallowing explosives and such, but this is just idiotic. You can't take over a plane with pointy objects, or they might as well disallowing writing utensils.
What could he possibly do with a fucking shuriken? I could see them disallowing explosives... but pointy objects? This is just insane. Virtually *anything* could be used as a weapon, and you certainly can't take over a plane with pointy objects.
"If I want to buy a computer, I could get a Dell, Hewlett-Packard, eMachines, etc."
Don't do that. Really. Building your own is a much better option (pricing).
"But the freedom of speech does not mean you can say what ever you want and get away with it."
What? I don't believe that you know what "freedom of speech" actually is. Especially in circumstances where it obviously doesn't hurt anyone. By hurt, I mean put someones life at risk, not offend. That is the *only* time I can see censorship being used.
But he was talking to a corporate tool. I feel that even if he didn't really mean it, worthless politicians deserve it.
What about free speech? Oh, wait, that doesn't matter anymore! Wait! Some guy over the internet insulted me and spouted profanity! He must be banned from the USA. Or does that only count for the president (who is a huge baby who can't handle mere words)?
"which may or may not affect the income of the person who holds the government rights to the work."
Everyone is guilty of "stealing potential profit." Saying that it hurts someone is just idiotic (not that you did say that, though).
Wait, someone is stealing a DVD from someone else? If so, then yes, that would indeed hurt someone because they've lost something. If they're just copying data, then they're not taking anything. That would be called copying.
I'd say it's a good salary. The key is to not spend every last penny on a giant house and useless things that you don't need. Lots of people would love making that much money each year. While they obviously can make more money, that's still a good salary.