(and yes, a 16-year-old is still very much a child when it comes to making non-malicious mistakes like this)
What mistake? The fact that people are oversensitive and get offended by something completely unrelated to an actual bombing does not mean that this experiment was a mistake.
And this sort of collective punishment won't help pay for anything I consider truly important, so comparing it to collecting taxes for public education is, I believe, extremely ridiculous. If they can do this sort of nonsense, then I demand a levy on every single product that is for sale because I feel I'm not earning enough money. Give me free money! It's civilization!
Nonsense. These people are trying to make everyone pay because some people are 'pirates'. If that's your idea of civilization, then you and other like-minded people should go start your own country away from the rest of us and then you can have all the draconian copyright laws that you wish.
Again, unless you people can prove the existence of a magical moral fairy (or some other such nonsense) who is capable of objectively deciding what is right and what is wrong, I stand by my statement that there is nothing that makes copyright infringement objectively bad.
If people don't pay for content, then some people will stop making content.
Then I think they should find a business model that works for them rather than beg the government for a government-enforced monopoly that infringes upon people's real property rights and promotes censorship.
harms civilization as a whole.
I do not believe that merely not gaining is harmful; good luck convincing me otherwise.
Besides, as I pointed out, I do not think the theater analogy is a very good analogy to begin with.
Wow, that's some sense of entitlement you got there!
You're assuming that I personally never want anyone to get paid; I merely said that I don't believe copyright infringement to be objectively bad, so that clearly isn't true. But I wonder who the real entitled ones are: the ones who expect the government to allow them to have a government-enforced monopoly that infringes upon real property rights, or the ones who copy data because it's available?
Nothing objectively bad in getting for free what other people are paying for?
Unless you can prove the existence of a magical moral fairy whose opinions about what is right and wrong are objectively the truth, no.
The point being, ultimately, that if that free viewer was an expected sale, then the price point could be reduced by $1 (or 99c, whatever the exact math is).
I don't understand the point of all this. I agree that the price may be lower when more people actually pay for something, but the 'creators' and business owners are ultimately responsible for any price changes, and it is up to them to find a working business model. If people don't like the price, then they can also choose not to pay (although that doesn't mean they have to be 'pirates' or anything such as that). I do not view any of this as harmful.
that doesn't change the fact that the individual is forcing other people to subsidize their viewing
But they're not forcing anyone to do anything. Furthermore, the 'creators' do not lose anything; they simply do not gain anything.
Not according to copyright law, it isn't. There are a number of differences between copyright infringement and what is normally known as "stealing."
Injunctions against stealing go back thousands of years and are found in all cultures that have any concept of property whatsoever.
Are you appealing to tradition and popularity to try to prove that what you believe is "stealing" is objectively wrong? If so, that's not really going to work on me.
You need to get a refund on your moral compass.
You need to consult your nearest magical moral fairy and then bring Her to me.
Just because you can't "see" these things doesn't mean they don't exist.
I already acknowledged some of the differences between copyright infringement and that person's example; you merely listed some more (regarding the last two, at least). Yes, the fact that you may use resources and take up a seat are just a few of the differences between physically sneaking into a theater and infringing upon someone's copyright.
1. If the theater tolerates you, others will stop paying leading to loss in revenue.
It's private property, so there's no reason for them to tolerate you. However, that's not really true of copyright infringement; all the downloading and uploading is typically done with one's own equipment.
As for the loss of potential profit, in the case of copyright infringement, is it not the duty of the 'creator' to find a workable business model and not pretend to be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly? I'd say so, but your opinion probably differs from mine, though I won't say you're rationalizing or any other such nonsense.
And if you can't see why it's wrong to take something from someone
No need to take anything; just copy the data.
you've got a rationalization problem.
Ah, yes, "rationalization"; a word that becomes almost meaningless in the hands of those who can't stand that other people have opinions that differ from their own. Why don't you try proving that I'm 'rationalizing', because I sure don't think that copyright infringement is wrong.
I'm basing my evaluation off the "golden rule" of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
A 'pirate' could actually use that same rule. What one person wants done to him/herself (or doesn't mind it being done, at least) may be different from what another person wants done to him/herself. That wouldn't even necessarily include never paying for anything.
but that still doesn't legitimize my doing something for free that other people are paying for and in effect subsidizing.
And there's nothing that makes it objectively bad, either. I can only see it being annoying if the theater is crowded and you're preventing someone who paid from getting a seat. Oh, and then there's the fact that it's private property. Fortunately, one does not typically involve the author(s) at all when downloading or uploading a file, so I'm not sure about that comparison to begin with.
You can't persuasively argue that it's "the right thing" to do, though.
Why not? What if you're able to persuade someone that it is "the right thing"?
Spoken like someone that's never thought of anything of value in his lifetime.
Spoken like someone who's talking to someone they've never met. I suppose you think all 'creators' think exactly alike?
Besides, do you think what I say would be any more valid if I were to prove that I have indeed thought of something of value (What is 'valuable' is subjective, anyway.) in my lifetime? You really think the people who stand to directly gain from the patent system are the only trustworthy people here? Really? Your statement makes absolutely zero sense to me, so I'll treat it as an irrelevant personal attack.
I suppose you also feel that all creative works should be given away for free too?
Oh, they can try to sell anything they want, but I just don't think they're entitled to a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or procedure.
It would have been more interesting if the lawyer was complaining about certain patents being accepted. Every patent needs to be rejected anyway, in my opinion.
Your not as surrounded by mindless zombies as you might think.
You haven't shown that. Many people don't even seem to bother writing to their representatives (better than nothing) about issues such as privacy, surveillance, and other such things. People seemed to be so easily manipulated after 9/11, and now there are calls for ubiquitous government surveillance of public places after the Boston bombings (with the usual idiotic logic being that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear). I'm not going to believe that people who are so easily manipulated are suddenly opposed to all this nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
(and yes, a 16-year-old is still very much a child when it comes to making non-malicious mistakes like this)
What mistake? The fact that people are oversensitive and get offended by something completely unrelated to an actual bombing does not mean that this experiment was a mistake.
And this sort of collective punishment won't help pay for anything I consider truly important, so comparing it to collecting taxes for public education is, I believe, extremely ridiculous. If they can do this sort of nonsense, then I demand a levy on every single product that is for sale because I feel I'm not earning enough money. Give me free money! It's civilization!
I believe the term is "civilization".
Nonsense. These people are trying to make everyone pay because some people are 'pirates'. If that's your idea of civilization, then you and other like-minded people should go start your own country away from the rest of us and then you can have all the draconian copyright laws that you wish.
Apparently the future also has plenty of imbeciles...
Why would you making backups have anything to do with them? Furthermore, what of people who don't even do that? Ah, forget it! Money!
Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.
I'll gladly pay some extra money in taxes if it would keep control freaks out of people's business to some extent.
Yes, yes there is.
Again, unless you people can prove the existence of a magical moral fairy (or some other such nonsense) who is capable of objectively deciding what is right and what is wrong, I stand by my statement that there is nothing that makes copyright infringement objectively bad.
If people don't pay for content, then some people will stop making content.
Then I think they should find a business model that works for them rather than beg the government for a government-enforced monopoly that infringes upon people's real property rights and promotes censorship.
harms civilization as a whole.
I do not believe that merely not gaining is harmful; good luck convincing me otherwise.
Besides, as I pointed out, I do not think the theater analogy is a very good analogy to begin with.
Wow, that's some sense of entitlement you got there!
You're assuming that I personally never want anyone to get paid; I merely said that I don't believe copyright infringement to be objectively bad, so that clearly isn't true. But I wonder who the real entitled ones are: the ones who expect the government to allow them to have a government-enforced monopoly that infringes upon real property rights, or the ones who copy data because it's available?
Nothing objectively bad in getting for free what other people are paying for?
Unless you can prove the existence of a magical moral fairy whose opinions about what is right and wrong are objectively the truth, no.
The point being, ultimately, that if that free viewer was an expected sale, then the price point could be reduced by $1 (or 99c, whatever the exact math is).
I don't understand the point of all this. I agree that the price may be lower when more people actually pay for something, but the 'creators' and business owners are ultimately responsible for any price changes, and it is up to them to find a working business model. If people don't like the price, then they can also choose not to pay (although that doesn't mean they have to be 'pirates' or anything such as that). I do not view any of this as harmful.
that doesn't change the fact that the individual is forcing other people to subsidize their viewing
But they're not forcing anyone to do anything. Furthermore, the 'creators' do not lose anything; they simply do not gain anything.
In other words, they want companies to make it easier for them to spy on us. That sounds spectacular!
It's stealing.
Not according to copyright law, it isn't. There are a number of differences between copyright infringement and what is normally known as "stealing."
Injunctions against stealing go back thousands of years and are found in all cultures that have any concept of property whatsoever.
Are you appealing to tradition and popularity to try to prove that what you believe is "stealing" is objectively wrong? If so, that's not really going to work on me.
You need to get a refund on your moral compass.
You need to consult your nearest magical moral fairy and then bring Her to me.
Just because you can't "see" these things doesn't mean they don't exist.
I already acknowledged some of the differences between copyright infringement and that person's example; you merely listed some more (regarding the last two, at least). Yes, the fact that you may use resources and take up a seat are just a few of the differences between physically sneaking into a theater and infringing upon someone's copyright.
1. If the theater tolerates you, others will stop paying leading to loss in revenue.
It's private property, so there's no reason for them to tolerate you. However, that's not really true of copyright infringement; all the downloading and uploading is typically done with one's own equipment.
As for the loss of potential profit, in the case of copyright infringement, is it not the duty of the 'creator' to find a workable business model and not pretend to be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly? I'd say so, but your opinion probably differs from mine, though I won't say you're rationalizing or any other such nonsense.
And if you can't see why it's wrong to take something from someone
No need to take anything; just copy the data.
you've got a rationalization problem.
Ah, yes, "rationalization"; a word that becomes almost meaningless in the hands of those who can't stand that other people have opinions that differ from their own. Why don't you try proving that I'm 'rationalizing', because I sure don't think that copyright infringement is wrong.
I'm basing my evaluation off the "golden rule" of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
A 'pirate' could actually use that same rule. What one person wants done to him/herself (or doesn't mind it being done, at least) may be different from what another person wants done to him/herself. That wouldn't even necessarily include never paying for anything.
How do you know that no one has been convinced?
but that still doesn't legitimize my doing something for free that other people are paying for and in effect subsidizing.
And there's nothing that makes it objectively bad, either. I can only see it being annoying if the theater is crowded and you're preventing someone who paid from getting a seat. Oh, and then there's the fact that it's private property. Fortunately, one does not typically involve the author(s) at all when downloading or uploading a file, so I'm not sure about that comparison to begin with.
You can't persuasively argue that it's "the right thing" to do, though.
Why not? What if you're able to persuade someone that it is "the right thing"?
Spoken like someone that's never thought of anything of value in his lifetime.
Spoken like someone who's talking to someone they've never met. I suppose you think all 'creators' think exactly alike?
Besides, do you think what I say would be any more valid if I were to prove that I have indeed thought of something of value (What is 'valuable' is subjective, anyway.) in my lifetime? You really think the people who stand to directly gain from the patent system are the only trustworthy people here? Really? Your statement makes absolutely zero sense to me, so I'll treat it as an irrelevant personal attack.
I suppose you also feel that all creative works should be given away for free too?
Oh, they can try to sell anything they want, but I just don't think they're entitled to a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or procedure.
There are some patents that merit acceptance.
I disagree. There, done.
Over 93.6% of players stole the game.
How did all those people manage to break in and steal copies of the game? They must truly be master thieves.
It would have been more interesting if the lawyer was complaining about certain patents being accepted. Every patent needs to be rejected anyway, in my opinion.
Some things are illegal because thats what the criminals do.
Some people do seem to favor collective punishment...
Ah, then I'll just install a camera in your bathroom...
Your not as surrounded by mindless zombies as you might think.
You haven't shown that. Many people don't even seem to bother writing to their representatives (better than nothing) about issues such as privacy, surveillance, and other such things. People seemed to be so easily manipulated after 9/11, and now there are calls for ubiquitous government surveillance of public places after the Boston bombings (with the usual idiotic logic being that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear). I'm not going to believe that people who are so easily manipulated are suddenly opposed to all this nonsense.
No True Parent...
and a criminal.
What is illegal is not always wrong, so being a criminal doesn't necessarily equate to being a bad person (or at least I certainly don't think so).
Because I'm sure they've never told a joke before or goofed around. It's so abnormal and terrible!