If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.
I certainly don't act surprised. Imbeciles who get angry that nobody did anything are part of the reason we have the TSA and other such rights-infringing nonsense. Myself? I'd rather nothing be done than violate someone's rights.
I'm a genius of the ages. How do I know this? Because I'm able to memorize mundane, useless information and do various other amazing things. If you question my genius, you're just jealous of my greatness.
If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property.
I do not think of it as property. In fact, I see it as taking away real property rights from other people. If I buy a game and then make it available to others with my own equipment, that has nothing to do with you, but copyright says otherwise.
I do not believe anyone should be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly, and once I buy something or it's stored on my equipment, I believe it is mine. This has nothing to do with that straw man (that people shouldn't profit, or some such nonsense) you keep bringing up.
That deprives the worker of their due profit.
No, it does nothing. They never had the money to begin with, so they cannot claim a tangible loss. I do not recognize anyone's right to a working business model, and one that thrives on censorship and controlling other people's use of their real property.
So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work.
They do not have a right to profit, but they do have a right to try to profit. See the difference? They can certainly try to profit, but it is up to them to succeed, and I do not think it is right for the government to grant monopolies to them. The fact that it would allegedly (this has not been proven) be difficult for them to profit without copyrights or patents does not at all mean they can't try to find a viable business model. This thing you keep bringing up is irrelevant.
If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away.
What, like copyrights and patents already do? I value certain freedoms, but the right to government-enforced monopolies is not one of them. The same applies to you, but you value different freedoms. So, do not act as if I am the one stripping rights from others, or rather, do not act as if that only applies to me.
We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.
Right back at you.
Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking.
Again, right back at you; you haven't said anything that I haven't heard before.
I find it rather unsettling that you compare copyrights and patents to real property, to be honest, because there would be no need for such laws if they were truly the same. If you see copyright and its ilk as property, as you seem to, why would you ever seek to limit it (the duration, specifically)? Would you be happy only owning, say, your computer, for a limited amount of time, and then someone came along to take it from you? I only say this because you act as if copyrights and patents are the same as real property; I hold no such delusions. And since when are real rights temporary, anyway? When a 'right' is temporary, it seems more like a privilege to me.
I don't believe you have a right to government-enforced monopolies that promote censorship and loss of real property rights. How could you take that to mean that I don't believe that people have the right to profit off of their labor? I believe they have a right to try, but I do not believe they should have a right to have the government enforce a business model for them, and I do not believe that they should be guaranteed a profit.
So, while they can certainly try to profit off of their labor like any other business, I do not believe we should be giving them special little monopolies.
You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to surrender rights and privacy in order to feel safer. That's what we did here in the US, and now people get molested for trying to get on a plane. How could that be considered a good thing?
So there's an elephant in the room that you refuse to admit to - there's a difference between recording what people normally see and putting cameras that follow you where you're normally alone and unseen.
There is no elephant int he room that I refuse to admit; I never said they were the same to begin with. The person I replied to said acted as if merely desiring privacy is an insane notion, and that he/she couldn't understand why anyone would do such a thing. In that regard, being spooked about cameras in private places is no different than being spooked about other privacy violations; either way, you simply desire privacy.
Some people seem to declare that certain types of privacy are 'worthless' without realizing that the same could be said about any type of privacy (even ones they value).
Well, sorry, but I don't consider being able to have a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or method of doing something to be a fundamental right, so nice try.
You guys seem to think you're the most interesting person in the world and everybody else is just dying to get a scoop on your private life.
Does the same apply to people who don't want cameras installed in every room of their house? After all, saying that you want a bit of privacy must mean that you think you're the most interesting person in the world!
Not everyone is concerned about just their own privacy, either.
Why are you so afraid? How is that so detrimental to your well-being?
Why would you be afraid of cameras being installed in your bathroom? What you do in there is completely normal and mundane, so why worry? People typically like to have privacy. A privacy invasion doesn't need to destroy someone in order for them to find it creepy.
Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.
Either you find a viable business model, or you fail; trying to limit the freedom of others is not, to me, a valid solution. Since I err on the side of freedom, I oppose copyrights and patents even if that means that people will create fewer things (and there's no evidence that that would be the case, as far as I know).
And anyway, I don't see how any of this means that abolishing copyright isn't a valid solution; it is to me.
Breaking the law isn't a valid form of protest especially when there is a creative commons solution.
Why would the existence of a creative commons solution mean that breaking the law (Is breaking the law supposed to automatically be a bad thing?) isn't a valid form of protest? That seems like an irrelevancy.
If the content you want doesn't exist then create it. It's that simple.
Or you could just ignore the silly monopolies and end up like this guy, or not receive any punishment at all (as is probably the case with most people who do such things).
it seems that most people who wave the flag of OSS miss at least one of the major points by trying to justify the infringement of copyright.
How do you know they're the same people? Why would anyone try to justify the infringement of copyright, anyway? If you don't believe it's wrong, then as far as I know, no one can tell you that you're objectively wrong for thinking so and prove it, so it seems rather pointless. The only thing you can do is discuss why you feel the way you do, but I do not believe that will objectively "justify" anything.
It's with neither. The issue is the entitlement culture that makes you think piracy is OK.
Personally, I'd say the issue is the entitlement culture that makes people think they should have government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures.
Everything else - the police action, the reinforcement of copyright law to criminal law - stems from that basic problem.
So police raiding a house because someone uploaded something without permission is the appropriate response? I disagree that it is.
Yeah! Who cares if they abused their power? We should just let the government do whatever it wants, provided that no one individual is ever severely damaged by the abuse.
Like hell! Don't you know that the only people that want to walk around naked are people that nobody wants to see naked?
You have no right to not be offended (or at least I don't believe you should).
That said, you keep saying, "No you are wrong." This is a subjective matter, so that doesn't seem likely, but I do agree with at least some of what you said.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.
Not if I'm offended and/or don't like them they don't!
If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.
I certainly don't act surprised. Imbeciles who get angry that nobody did anything are part of the reason we have the TSA and other such rights-infringing nonsense. Myself? I'd rather nothing be done than violate someone's rights.
Jealousy is such a common response.
I'm a genius of the ages. How do I know this? Because I'm able to memorize mundane, useless information and do various other amazing things. If you question my genius, you're just jealous of my greatness.
That seems rather unlikely if you're saying that that applies to most people.
It is called ownership and yes it does apply to intangibles.
Currently, yes. I want to get rid of copyright and such, remember? What a strange thing to say...
If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property.
I do not think of it as property. In fact, I see it as taking away real property rights from other people. If I buy a game and then make it available to others with my own equipment, that has nothing to do with you, but copyright says otherwise.
I do not believe anyone should be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly, and once I buy something or it's stored on my equipment, I believe it is mine. This has nothing to do with that straw man (that people shouldn't profit, or some such nonsense) you keep bringing up.
That deprives the worker of their due profit.
No, it does nothing. They never had the money to begin with, so they cannot claim a tangible loss. I do not recognize anyone's right to a working business model, and one that thrives on censorship and controlling other people's use of their real property.
So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work.
They do not have a right to profit, but they do have a right to try to profit. See the difference? They can certainly try to profit, but it is up to them to succeed, and I do not think it is right for the government to grant monopolies to them. The fact that it would allegedly (this has not been proven) be difficult for them to profit without copyrights or patents does not at all mean they can't try to find a viable business model. This thing you keep bringing up is irrelevant.
If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away.
What, like copyrights and patents already do? I value certain freedoms, but the right to government-enforced monopolies is not one of them. The same applies to you, but you value different freedoms. So, do not act as if I am the one stripping rights from others, or rather, do not act as if that only applies to me.
We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.
Right back at you.
Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking.
Again, right back at you; you haven't said anything that I haven't heard before.
I find it rather unsettling that you compare copyrights and patents to real property, to be honest, because there would be no need for such laws if they were truly the same. If you see copyright and its ilk as property, as you seem to, why would you ever seek to limit it (the duration, specifically)? Would you be happy only owning, say, your computer, for a limited amount of time, and then someone came along to take it from you? I only say this because you act as if copyrights and patents are the same as real property; I hold no such delusions. And since when are real rights temporary, anyway? When a 'right' is temporary, it seems more like a privilege to me.
I don't believe you have a right to government-enforced monopolies that promote censorship and loss of real property rights. How could you take that to mean that I don't believe that people have the right to profit off of their labor? I believe they have a right to try, but I do not believe they should have a right to have the government enforce a business model for them, and I do not believe that they should be guaranteed a profit.
So, while they can certainly try to profit off of their labor like any other business, I do not believe we should be giving them special little monopolies.
You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to surrender rights and privacy in order to feel safer. That's what we did here in the US, and now people get molested for trying to get on a plane. How could that be considered a good thing?
I've seen people stick up for his rights, but I haven't really seen where a majority of people here think he's an actual hero.
So there's an elephant in the room that you refuse to admit to - there's a difference between recording what people normally see and putting cameras that follow you where you're normally alone and unseen.
There is no elephant int he room that I refuse to admit; I never said they were the same to begin with. The person I replied to said acted as if merely desiring privacy is an insane notion, and that he/she couldn't understand why anyone would do such a thing. In that regard, being spooked about cameras in private places is no different than being spooked about other privacy violations; either way, you simply desire privacy.
Some people seem to declare that certain types of privacy are 'worthless' without realizing that the same could be said about any type of privacy (even ones they value).
Well, sorry, but I don't consider being able to have a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or method of doing something to be a fundamental right, so nice try.
You guys seem to think you're the most interesting person in the world and everybody else is just dying to get a scoop on your private life.
Does the same apply to people who don't want cameras installed in every room of their house? After all, saying that you want a bit of privacy must mean that you think you're the most interesting person in the world!
Not everyone is concerned about just their own privacy, either.
Why are you so afraid? How is that so detrimental to your well-being?
Why would you be afraid of cameras being installed in your bathroom? What you do in there is completely normal and mundane, so why worry? People typically like to have privacy. A privacy invasion doesn't need to destroy someone in order for them to find it creepy.
Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.
Either you find a viable business model, or you fail; trying to limit the freedom of others is not, to me, a valid solution. Since I err on the side of freedom, I oppose copyrights and patents even if that means that people will create fewer things (and there's no evidence that that would be the case, as far as I know).
And anyway, I don't see how any of this means that abolishing copyright isn't a valid solution; it is to me.
My entire point is that abolishing copyright, at this point in time, isn't a valid solution.
How so?
Nope.
If those things happened, it wasn't because of jay walking.
Because we all know that the police are perfect beings. I'm not saying it happened, but it seems rather ridiculous to me to say that it couldn't.
Two wrongs don't make a right
Saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" suggests that the person believes there were two wrongs to begin with, and that may very well not be the case.
Breaking the law isn't a valid form of protest especially when there is a creative commons solution.
Why would the existence of a creative commons solution mean that breaking the law (Is breaking the law supposed to automatically be a bad thing?) isn't a valid form of protest? That seems like an irrelevancy.
If the content you want doesn't exist then create it. It's that simple.
Or you could just ignore the silly monopolies and end up like this guy, or not receive any punishment at all (as is probably the case with most people who do such things).
it seems that most people who wave the flag of OSS miss at least one of the major points by trying to justify the infringement of copyright.
How do you know they're the same people? Why would anyone try to justify the infringement of copyright, anyway? If you don't believe it's wrong, then as far as I know, no one can tell you that you're objectively wrong for thinking so and prove it, so it seems rather pointless. The only thing you can do is discuss why you feel the way you do, but I do not believe that will objectively "justify" anything.
Nobody would have any sympathy for her.
What? Are you sure about that?
If we had enough support to do something like that, we may as well just get rid of most of the DMCA.
It's with neither. The issue is the entitlement culture that makes you think piracy is OK.
Personally, I'd say the issue is the entitlement culture that makes people think they should have government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures.
Everything else - the police action, the reinforcement of copyright law to criminal law - stems from that basic problem.
So police raiding a house because someone uploaded something without permission is the appropriate response? I disagree that it is.
So is thinking youre entitled to a single thing on this earth.
What, like a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods?
Personaly i think this is horrible but the issue is with the copyright law and not with the police course of action.
It's with both.
Doesn't seem like fair use.. seems like blatant copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement! The horror! We need to raid her house!
As I learned in Boy Scouts, if you don't like the law, try to have it changed in an orderly manner, rather than disobey it.
Why? There's no point that I see in obeying such laws, and doing so may be harmful in some cases.
Yeah! Who cares if they abused their power? We should just let the government do whatever it wants, provided that no one individual is ever severely damaged by the abuse.
Like hell! Don't you know that the only people that want to walk around naked are people that nobody wants to see naked?
You have no right to not be offended (or at least I don't believe you should).
That said, you keep saying, "No you are wrong." This is a subjective matter, so that doesn't seem likely, but I do agree with at least some of what you said.