It's convenient that the artists whose works you are pirating can't demand a refund from you, isn't it.
That might make sense if the artists actually gave him anything. Most likely, someone else allowed him to copy the data, and he didn't receive any money or anything else from the artists. What would they want him to refund... a copy of their own works?
After all, the subscribers are being throttled, not prosecuted.
"I only punched you in the face! It's not like I murdered you or anything!"
But yeah, I don't see how punishing random people is an elegant solution. Anti-piracy schemes like this typically end up hurting not only the 'pirates' but also the people who don't infringe upon copyright.
This applies to personal emails and other effects but it is not license to take others intellectual property and do with as you like.
What the hell are you talking about, and how is it relevant to the story?
We need to defend intellectual property as well as our own privacy.
And judging from your comment, you propose to do that by... invading people's privacy for 'safety'? But no, I don't really want the government to waste my tax dollars going after people who copy files.
I'm quite sure Hitler did more than just speak words. Furthermore, if you merely threaten someone, I do not believe you should be arrested just for that. However, if your threat is deemed to have some degree of credibility (i.e. it doesn't seem like a joke), an investigation may be in order. If it is found that it is likely you were going to act on that threat, then you would be convicted for that and not your words.
Yes, fault them for wanting to live
Fault them for killing others to save their own skins.
and yet you somehow can't appreciate the single exception that is made.
These companies conduct way more surveillance PER CITIZEN than govt.
Right, but my entire point was that the government can get this data from the companies, and then multiple entities have the it; one of them (the government) can ruin your life. Because corporations so freely hand over the data to the government, it can sometimes be worse if a corporation is the one who gets the data, in my opinion.
I have to say that I'm not completely sure about that. When the government obtains tons of personal information about you, they can use it against you. When a corporation in the US obtains tons of personal information about you, they'll probably use it to make more money... but the government will also try to get access to that information, and if they do get it (which they probably will), they'll use it against you. In that scenario, it's possible that numerous entities get your information. As long as the government can simply ask corporations for information without a warrant and is able to use it in court against you, I'll have to say that it's getting to the point where it's worse if a corporation gets your information.
Don't all these logical fallacies require an underlying, provable truth?
He said, "It's only a long sentence if you approve of the crime of commercial copyright infringement." That is indeed a false dilemma even if "long sentence" is subjective. The problem is he's saying that either you approve of the crime of commercial copyright infringement and believe the sentence is too long, or you disapprove of the crime of commercial copyright infringement and think it's just right/too short. You can be against copyright infringement but still believe that the punishments don't fit the crime.
By that logic most people are too dumb to play the violin.
Must people do seem incapable of understanding the abstract. No, I'm not referring to memorizing equations or routines; I'm referring to truly understanding the material (i.e. why it works).
Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.
What qualifies as 'extreme' is subjective.
But of course, this is likely not limited to just 'extremists'. People generally don't want to be wrong, after all. Then of course there is the fact that people who really, really don't like something would probably want to blame everything that goes wrong on the thing that they don't like.
If a man can't be loyal to his spouse, can we expect him to be loyal to his country?
Seeing as how they pertain to different subjects, I certainly don't see why not. Not that I ever trust politicians or authority figures to be loyal, anyway...
"If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world."
That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't consider that many other factors may be involved. It doesn't even consider the fact that a 'better' patent system may allow for more innovation. The fact that U.S. software companies are supposedly the most successful in the world doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.
How are you to define what constitutes murder? Can you contact whatever being it is that you believe dictates morality so you can find out?
It seems obvious to me: whatever moral codes are most accepted will be the 'winners,' and laws will possibly be based on those moral codes. Abortion could be considered okay in one society, and wrong in another.
Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.
Not all pedophiles are child molesters. I'm not even sure if the majority of them are.
It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access
I think it is to people who actually care about freedom of speech.
Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists.
I don't want to accept what I believe is illogical nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
It's convenient that the artists whose works you are pirating can't demand a refund from you, isn't it.
That might make sense if the artists actually gave him anything. Most likely, someone else allowed him to copy the data, and he didn't receive any money or anything else from the artists. What would they want him to refund... a copy of their own works?
After all, the subscribers are being throttled, not prosecuted.
"I only punched you in the face! It's not like I murdered you or anything!"
But yeah, I don't see how punishing random people is an elegant solution. Anti-piracy schemes like this typically end up hurting not only the 'pirates' but also the people who don't infringe upon copyright.
that are ruining it for everyone else.
I think the ones that are ruining the web are the ones actually taking steps to ruin the web. You know, companies and lawmakers.
This applies to personal emails and other effects but it is not license to take others intellectual property and do with as you like.
What the hell are you talking about, and how is it relevant to the story?
We need to defend intellectual property as well as our own privacy.
And judging from your comment, you propose to do that by... invading people's privacy for 'safety'? But no, I don't really want the government to waste my tax dollars going after people who copy files.
yes, and hitler's hands were therefore clean.
I'm quite sure Hitler did more than just speak words. Furthermore, if you merely threaten someone, I do not believe you should be arrested just for that. However, if your threat is deemed to have some degree of credibility (i.e. it doesn't seem like a joke), an investigation may be in order. If it is found that it is likely you were going to act on that threat, then you would be convicted for that and not your words.
Yes, fault them for wanting to live
Fault them for killing others to save their own skins.
and yet you somehow can't appreciate the single exception that is made.
No, I can't.
So... idiocy is still a thing?
It's about killing people.
No, it isn't. If anyone dies, it's mainly due to the people that kill them, not the ones who spoke the words.
The police will tell you that "no reasonable person would find that offensive", and hang up on you.
But I'd bet you'd be pretty angry if this vague, imaginary "reasonable person" sided against you.
Just leave people to continue making threatening and abusive phone calls, emails and posts on social media?
Sure. Toughen up, too.
But that's not all that can get you arrested.
Then I think it's about time people toughen up rather than try to censor others' speech.
Exactly! That's why China has just as much free speech as the US; they only punish people for the *consequences* of their speech!
These companies conduct way more surveillance PER CITIZEN than govt.
Right, but my entire point was that the government can get this data from the companies, and then multiple entities have the it; one of them (the government) can ruin your life. Because corporations so freely hand over the data to the government, it can sometimes be worse if a corporation is the one who gets the data, in my opinion.
Another solution is to have a class that isn't absolute garbage.
Standardized tests are almost always garbage anyway. Can you cram and memorize material? You can usually pass a standardized test, then.
I find that disturbing.
I have to say that I'm not completely sure about that. When the government obtains tons of personal information about you, they can use it against you. When a corporation in the US obtains tons of personal information about you, they'll probably use it to make more money... but the government will also try to get access to that information, and if they do get it (which they probably will), they'll use it against you. In that scenario, it's possible that numerous entities get your information. As long as the government can simply ask corporations for information without a warrant and is able to use it in court against you, I'll have to say that it's getting to the point where it's worse if a corporation gets your information.
Don't all these logical fallacies require an underlying, provable truth?
He said, "It's only a long sentence if you approve of the crime of commercial copyright infringement." That is indeed a false dilemma even if "long sentence" is subjective. The problem is he's saying that either you approve of the crime of commercial copyright infringement and believe the sentence is too long, or you disapprove of the crime of commercial copyright infringement and think it's just right/too short. You can be against copyright infringement but still believe that the punishments don't fit the crime.
Actually, cops protect society, mostly from people like you.
You made an assumption about someone you don't even know. Do cops protect society? Maybe some. Maybe most. However, not all.
Of course, some people think the TSA protects society...
The penalties for assaulting them should be very severe.
No more severe than assaulting a person that doesn't even have a gun or any real power!
Must people do seem incapable of understanding the abstract.
Are most people incapable of it, or are they just not being taught properly? It could very well be the latter.
By that logic most people are too dumb to play the violin.
Must people do seem incapable of understanding the abstract. No, I'm not referring to memorizing equations or routines; I'm referring to truly understanding the material (i.e. why it works).
Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.
What qualifies as 'extreme' is subjective.
But of course, this is likely not limited to just 'extremists'. People generally don't want to be wrong, after all. Then of course there is the fact that people who really, really don't like something would probably want to blame everything that goes wrong on the thing that they don't like.
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress, in policy discussions, in think tanks, in political essays and so on.
And I suppose you consulted the magical opinion fairy to find out what is and isn't "useful"?
Besides, your comment is 100% useless. You need to be punished for making it because it offended me.
If a man can't be loyal to his spouse, can we expect him to be loyal to his country?
Seeing as how they pertain to different subjects, I certainly don't see why not. Not that I ever trust politicians or authority figures to be loyal, anyway...
"If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world."
That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't consider that many other factors may be involved. It doesn't even consider the fact that a 'better' patent system may allow for more innovation. The fact that U.S. software companies are supposedly the most successful in the world doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.
How are we to define what constitutes murder?
How are you to define what constitutes murder? Can you contact whatever being it is that you believe dictates morality so you can find out?
It seems obvious to me: whatever moral codes are most accepted will be the 'winners,' and laws will possibly be based on those moral codes. Abortion could be considered okay in one society, and wrong in another.
Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.
Not all pedophiles are child molesters. I'm not even sure if the majority of them are.
It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access
I think it is to people who actually care about freedom of speech.
Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists.
I don't want to accept what I believe is illogical nonsense.