I think it'd be better if copyright didn't exist at all. Or at the very least, if they didn't ruin people's lives for copying movies, no matter how many...
How could they possibly determine that? Furthermore, reputation is utterly subjective and I do not believe this is something the law should take into account to begin with.
First of all: ensuring laws are followed for public safety is one of the primary purposes of the government. Stopping you from running red lights is not micromanaging.
You're ignoring the actual issues people have with it and pretending it's about running red lights; it isn't.
Second: you know for a fact it is impossible for humans to do that kind of monitoring and you would be even more petulant if they tried to hire more cops to do this.
But it's certainly possible to collect information to find targets to harass.
Welcome to the modern world where we use technology to do more work with less humans.
And it seems that some people in the western world want nothing to do with this. Surveillance of public places is something I believe only a fool would desire.
This is the perfect use case for computer monitoring.
Like the NSA, huh? They only bother with terrorists! Oh, wait...
It seems me you just want to be able to do whatever you want to do.
Just like people who oppose things such as the NSA, TSA, and stop-and-frisk must be bad guys, right? Please.
If you're out in public, then you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy except inside the vehicle itself.
I do, however, expect my government to not record what I'm doing just because I'm out in public.
What's to do stop other citizens from observing or recording you, after all?
Do I really need to explain the difference between a government installing surveillance equipment in random places for their own purposes and random citizens observing or recording you?
A human eye, a camera eye, what's the difference other than the fact that the camera eye is not subject to the fallibility of perception and can be replayed so that a more objective assessment of what actually occurred can be made?
Other than the fact that the data can be reliably stored and retrieved for later use, people aren't all connected to a single source like most of these cameras are, and a single citizen isn't everywhere at once? Come on, now.
If it's recorded, whatever action it caught you doing, well, you did it.
Which doesn't mean you did anything bad or illegal.
but I don't see the big deal with having them at intersections.
Well, I do.
My verdict: You don't distrust the government enough. Study some history.
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public
Because there is a different between surveillance equipment and people.
What rights, exactly, are being trampled on?
My rights to not be recorded by random government surveillance equipment. Don't see that as a right? Well, I'd say you're part of the problem, then. I simply don't want to live in a world where government surveillance equipment is installed in random places, even if those places happen to be in public.
This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Naive; much in the same way as people who say that the NSA is only a threat to terrorists.
If you are in a public space, you don't have a right to privacy, asshole.
Mass surveillance is quite different from some random person seeing you or overhearing you. Furthermore, even in public places, you do have some degree of privacy.
Even in a public place, I expect that I'm not being recorded by government surveillance equipment installed in random locations.
And, they are working for you, to keep you safe from people who run red lights.
For me, liberty > safety. Take your safety and toss it into the garbage.
Oh, wait, that would be you running the red lights, asshole.
Why do you assume that? Do you think it makes your arguments more powerful to attack me? Do you not believe it's possible to argue for or against something when you're not someone who would personally gain a great deal from whatever changes you propose? If so, that makes it seem like you're quite selfish to me. I can be against red light cameras without being someone who runs red lights just like I can be a proponent of gay marriage without being gay.
Public doesn't mean you get to ignore privacy or rights issues, and privacy is no mere excuse. You seem a bit unprincipled to desire safety that strongly.
But you wouldn't have an issue with a cop on every using a camera to film everyone who at the intersection, right?
That takes manpower. Disallowing government cameras in public places except those that are on a cop's person or on a cop's car seems like a more sensible policy to me. Mass, automatic surveillance is far different than a guy carrying a camera.
After all, you are in a public space.
Public space or no, it's our money, and they're supposed to be working for us. Hopefully they'll do what we say.
Interpreting what I said in that way is like saying that people who oppose DUI checkpoints are asserting the right to drink and drive. Absurd. I simply oppose having government cameras everywhere.
I know a lot of privacy minded people have a problem with it, but there really are a lot of people around here who ignore very red lights and could cause accidents.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
Or forcing someone to abandon their 4th amendment rights to get on an airplane, or live near the border. This reasoning leads to all sorts of lovely, lovely tyranny.
however there is no question that DUI checkpoints do save lives.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, this is irrelevant. Even if the TSA saved lives, I would still be 100% opposed to them.
Driving on public roads is not an individualist pursuit, nor do you have any "inalienable right" to do so without the express permission of a license.
Nor does the government have any constitutional power to search you without probable cause. Stopping people to check their innocence is not at all something I'd expect from a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The license is proof to everyone else sharing the road that your knowledge of the rules has been tested.
If they were merely going after people they knew or had good reason to believe were breaking the law, I'd have little problem with it. What I have a problem with is harassing innocent people to check their innocence. The two things are very, very different.
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right.
Disgusting. The fact that driving is technically not a constitutionally protected right (though the constitution isn't a blacklist of things the government can't do, you know) doesn't mean they can harass you to check your innocence. That is unconstitutional.
If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.
Just like if you don't want to get molested by the TSA, you shouldn't go to airports. Just like if you don't want to be stripped of all your rights, you shouldn't live in a certain city. After all, you can simply choose not to do those things. This logic can be applied to any activity that supposedly isn't a constitutionally protected right. I do not believe the government has the authority to have you sign away your rights in order to do something perfectly legal.
Your reasoning leads to tyranny, and provably so. I'll have none of it.
What if you don't use a cellphone at all? What if you accept that you can't effectively boycott everything and instead choose to do the best that you possibly can?
_THIS_. I hate DRM in all its forms. I want it to go away.
They have done DRM right
Does not compute.
Also, I'm fairly certain that certain games on Steam don't have any DRM whatsoever and can be used without Steam (though, they're probably a minority).
Slashdot Mirror
Without copyright the GPL would not work.
So? Without copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary.
I think it'd be better if copyright didn't exist at all. Or at the very least, if they didn't ruin people's lives for copying movies, no matter how many...
That's still only one movie they got him for.
This damage is valued at SEK 300 000.
How could they possibly determine that? Furthermore, reputation is utterly subjective and I do not believe this is something the law should take into account to begin with.
So many damn people use this argument when they should know full well that piracy *is* theft and that an archaic definition doesn't change things.
Copyright infringement isn't considered theft by the law. They're not even related.
If you're still believing this once you reach maturity, you should probably revisit an ethics class.
Anyone who disagrees with you must be a teenager. You'll understand when you're older.
This was compensation for losses on the behalf of the wronged party.
The losses that don't actually exist.
I'm going with the military tradition that you show respect to the rank or office not the man temporarily holding it.
Well, I'm not going with that.
I'm referring to respect as in respectful and courteous treatment not respect for one's ideas or actions.
I don't believe these criminals deserve any such thing.
Not making a decision is still making a decision.
No, it isn't.
First of all: ensuring laws are followed for public safety is one of the primary purposes of the government. Stopping you from running red lights is not micromanaging.
You're ignoring the actual issues people have with it and pretending it's about running red lights; it isn't.
Second: you know for a fact it is impossible for humans to do that kind of monitoring and you would be even more petulant if they tried to hire more cops to do this.
But it's certainly possible to collect information to find targets to harass.
Welcome to the modern world where we use technology to do more work with less humans.
And it seems that some people in the western world want nothing to do with this. Surveillance of public places is something I believe only a fool would desire.
This is the perfect use case for computer monitoring.
Like the NSA, huh? They only bother with terrorists! Oh, wait...
It seems me you just want to be able to do whatever you want to do.
Just like people who oppose things such as the NSA, TSA, and stop-and-frisk must be bad guys, right? Please.
If you're out in public, then you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy except inside the vehicle itself.
I do, however, expect my government to not record what I'm doing just because I'm out in public.
What's to do stop other citizens from observing or recording you, after all?
Do I really need to explain the difference between a government installing surveillance equipment in random places for their own purposes and random citizens observing or recording you?
A human eye, a camera eye, what's the difference other than the fact that the camera eye is not subject to the fallibility of perception and can be replayed so that a more objective assessment of what actually occurred can be made?
Other than the fact that the data can be reliably stored and retrieved for later use, people aren't all connected to a single source like most of these cameras are, and a single citizen isn't everywhere at once? Come on, now.
If it's recorded, whatever action it caught you doing, well, you did it.
Which doesn't mean you did anything bad or illegal.
but I don't see the big deal with having them at intersections.
Well, I do.
My verdict: You don't distrust the government enough. Study some history.
Read my post again. My intention was not to directly compare DUI checkpoints with red light cameras; it was merely an analogy.
the red light camera only snaps a pick if you broke the law....
So you say.
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public
Because there is a different between surveillance equipment and people.
What rights, exactly, are being trampled on?
My rights to not be recorded by random government surveillance equipment. Don't see that as a right? Well, I'd say you're part of the problem, then. I simply don't want to live in a world where government surveillance equipment is installed in random places, even if those places happen to be in public.
This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Naive; much in the same way as people who say that the NSA is only a threat to terrorists.
The cops can't be everywhere
Nor do I believe they should be.
If you are in a public space, you don't have a right to privacy, asshole.
Mass surveillance is quite different from some random person seeing you or overhearing you. Furthermore, even in public places, you do have some degree of privacy.
Even in a public place, I expect that I'm not being recorded by government surveillance equipment installed in random locations.
And, they are working for you, to keep you safe from people who run red lights.
For me, liberty > safety. Take your safety and toss it into the garbage.
Oh, wait, that would be you running the red lights, asshole.
Why do you assume that? Do you think it makes your arguments more powerful to attack me? Do you not believe it's possible to argue for or against something when you're not someone who would personally gain a great deal from whatever changes you propose? If so, that makes it seem like you're quite selfish to me. I can be against red light cameras without being someone who runs red lights just like I can be a proponent of gay marriage without being gay.
Public doesn't mean you get to ignore privacy or rights issues, and privacy is no mere excuse. You seem a bit unprincipled to desire safety that strongly.
But you wouldn't have an issue with a cop on every using a camera to film everyone who at the intersection, right?
That takes manpower. Disallowing government cameras in public places except those that are on a cop's person or on a cop's car seems like a more sensible policy to me. Mass, automatic surveillance is far different than a guy carrying a camera.
After all, you are in a public space.
Public space or no, it's our money, and they're supposed to be working for us. Hopefully they'll do what we say.
You're saying you have a right to run red lights?
Interpreting what I said in that way is like saying that people who oppose DUI checkpoints are asserting the right to drink and drive. Absurd. I simply oppose having government cameras everywhere.
I know a lot of privacy minded people have a problem with it, but there really are a lot of people around here who ignore very red lights and could cause accidents.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
"The games on this list do not have any DRM and do not require the Steam Client to be played."
Looks like most on the list don't have any DRM, if it's accurate.
Or forcing someone to abandon their 4th amendment rights to get on an airplane, or live near the border. This reasoning leads to all sorts of lovely, lovely tyranny.
Do you have a point?
however there is no question that DUI checkpoints do save lives.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, this is irrelevant. Even if the TSA saved lives, I would still be 100% opposed to them.
Driving on public roads is not an individualist pursuit, nor do you have any "inalienable right" to do so without the express permission of a license.
Nor does the government have any constitutional power to search you without probable cause. Stopping people to check their innocence is not at all something I'd expect from a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The license is proof to everyone else sharing the road that your knowledge of the rules has been tested.
If they were merely going after people they knew or had good reason to believe were breaking the law, I'd have little problem with it. What I have a problem with is harassing innocent people to check their innocence. The two things are very, very different.
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right.
Disgusting. The fact that driving is technically not a constitutionally protected right (though the constitution isn't a blacklist of things the government can't do, you know) doesn't mean they can harass you to check your innocence. That is unconstitutional.
If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.
Just like if you don't want to get molested by the TSA, you shouldn't go to airports. Just like if you don't want to be stripped of all your rights, you shouldn't live in a certain city. After all, you can simply choose not to do those things. This logic can be applied to any activity that supposedly isn't a constitutionally protected right. I do not believe the government has the authority to have you sign away your rights in order to do something perfectly legal.
Your reasoning leads to tyranny, and provably so. I'll have none of it.
Most of those comments disgust me. Well, it is Youtube...
What if you don't use a cellphone at all? What if you accept that you can't effectively boycott everything and instead choose to do the best that you possibly can?
_THIS_. I hate DRM in all its forms. I want it to go away.
They have done DRM right
Does not compute.
Also, I'm fairly certain that certain games on Steam don't have any DRM whatsoever and can be used without Steam (though, they're probably a minority).