Then we're in trouble, because there's zero chance of stopping copyright infringement even with draconian laws that harm everyone. But I doubt they're actually that important of a concept. If someone doesn't find a proper business model, then I think they should just go out of business rather than try to claim ownership of the data stored on my storage medium/device. Less entertainment and other such things? Perhaps. Worth it? I believe so.
Everybody gets free bread and the baker makes no sales.
I know. How awful. A magical way to copy food, and the complaint is that the baker isn't making any money... Maybe he should find a business model or die.
Sure wish the real world was like that, I'd drive a Ferrari since I wouldn't want to pay for one.
World hunger would effectively be eliminated. But I'm sure people would complain about loss of potential profit anyway.
I'm assuming it would be like when you download a file: at no cost of time, money, or property to the baker, a copy would be made. He wouldn't even notice.
I think you're building a straw man argument there.
Sure, if you're only talking absolute certainties (I can't predict the future with absolute certainty). But I think what he meant was that they will almost certainly abuse whatever powers they have if people mindlessly give it to them.
Assuming that information collected will be misused is just as bad as assuming that all information someone attempts to obfuscate is illegal. Isn't it?
No, I don't believe it is. Otherwise it would apparently be foolish to argue that the government shouldn't have the power to imprison people based on mere accusations because they'd probably abuse it. I'd say that it's a pretty good guess just by taking a look at various governments throughout history. People with a lot of power tend to abuse that power, so giving them power when it isn't absolutely necessary is probably a bad idea.
Citizens not wanting their government to have unchecked power is far different from assuming that a regular citizen is guilty of something for desiring privacy.
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
What? The fact that there aren't zero avenues of attack doesn't mean that people should expect the actual government to create laws that make it mandatory to keep information. That just makes the matter worse and expands the government's power.
are you seriously going to stick to that single comparison
Yeah, because to someone, that could make a difference. Someone would only be a hypocrite if they said that they hated all forms of advertising in existence and all methods of attracting attention.
If that's the case, there's no reasoning with you anyway.
Yes, they are. One is a form of advertising on a website sapping your bandwidth (if you care), and the other is just people thinking you dress nicely. I don't believe commercials and advertisements on the Internet can be equated to walking into a bar wearing clothing that people may or may not think look nice.
Also, if you've ever dressed nicely before going out to a bar (or if you even have a job resume), then congratulations, you're an advertiser and a hypocrite.
What's with the misuse of the word "hypocrite"? Claiming to hate other people's ads on websites and dressing nicely at a bar are two different things. They didn't directly contradict anything they said.
I don't consider it worth violating everyone's rights because of the possibility that I might get killed. That's the attitude that leads to organizations such as the TSA.
Who cares about that!? He could, theoretically, kill someone. Actually, anyone could. And as everyone knows, a few deaths are far worse than violating everyone's freedom. Therefore, we must toss everyone in prison.
I thought so too. Didn't we crumple it up and toss it out around the time that we created the TSA, passed the Patriot Act, allowed warrantless tracking of cars, and came up with the idea of free speech zones? Actually, has there ever been a time when we followed the constitution? Listening to it would allow the communists/terrorists to win, so only a communist/terrorist enabler would do so...
Realistically? Realistically they can never stop these websites. They can shut down a few at most (and if they're host in other countries, that's be difficult) and hope they don't lose the court cases that take place afterwards, but more will spring up in the meantime.
So, yeah, while changing copyright law is unlikely to happen for a while yet, realistically there's no way to stop copyright infringement.
and by stealing they have the moral high ground. Guess what - they don't.
Well, this matter is about copyright infringement. But whether or not they have the "moral high ground" (whatever that means) is completely subjective. I think it's rather pointless since it's not as if you're taking away the company's existing money, but it's still an opinion. The fact that it's consistently stated as a fact doesn't mean it is a fact.
But more importantly: I did not pirate until recently. I was in full boycott mode when it came to music, movies and games I didn't like. But then some companies decided they could violate our rights to make profits - you've heard of SOPA I presume. From then on, this was war. I no longer care about being nice and doing the right thing and not using what I didn't pay for. Now I download for free from all the companies who supported SOPA or tried to make DRM circumvention illegal, etc.
What's that going to do? Whether you download it or boycott it, the effect is almost exactly the same (except that in one scenario, you have a game). It's not as if they lose money they already possess if you download their game, so you might as well have just continued boycotting them.
If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.
That was to make it more accurate, but I do feel that it was understandable to begin with. I don't see how anyone could read your comment and come to the conclusion that websites like Wikipedia or pictures of kittens are poisonous to children.
So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy?
That isn't necessary. There are things I believe should be done and things I believe shouldn't be done. I disagree with the censorship approach, but it is someone else's property, so there's not much that can be done about that other than voicing disagreement.
If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality.
I'm just Denying Reality. I couldn't disagree otherwise.
If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today.
Well, you're also not every child. But I did not say that you shouldn't save someone when their very life is in danger. That has nothing to do with children specifically. I'd hope people would save anyone of any age if their life was in danger.
It is common knowledge
Irrelevant.
Oh please. It is freaking obvious.
I did mention punishment, actually. I also mentioned that that doesn't necessarily bring immediate results. That doesn't have to be a requirement, though. But "forcing" someone to eat vegetables made me envision something that brings more immediate results.
(that a child must be treated as my buddy)
Don't know where you got that.
I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat
Is it? I think it's close enough, because I too know what you meant. "The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone."
Very well, I'll correct myself: Pornography and perverts on the Internet are not like poison. The latter are so few in number that you may as well be petrified of terrorism. As for the former, I believe comparing that to poison is simply preposterous.
Now there you have a false analogy.
I disagree entirely. I believe it teaches them to easily submit to authority, especially when they're arbitrary taught that certain things are 'poison' because some people don't like them.
For example, every sane person
No True Sane Person would argue otherwise.
accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables.
How would you force anyone to eat vegetables, anyway? Punishing them if they don't? Well, alright, but you didn't exactly force them to eat the vegetables. That would probably require you to force-feed it to them. Not sure I like that idea (if someone decided to do that).
Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights are an important concept in our world
Then we're in trouble, because there's zero chance of stopping copyright infringement even with draconian laws that harm everyone. But I doubt they're actually that important of a concept. If someone doesn't find a proper business model, then I think they should just go out of business rather than try to claim ownership of the data stored on my storage medium/device. Less entertainment and other such things? Perhaps. Worth it? I believe so.
if you want music without copyright
Then get rid of copyright law.
the loaf of bread is BY someone.
And in this scenario, it can be copied infinitely at no additional cost to the baker.
some people can't comprehend this since they think anything they see someone else work on they deserve for free.
I suspect it's more about the fact that it's there than it's about deserving anything.
Everybody gets free bread and the baker makes no sales.
I know. How awful. A magical way to copy food, and the complaint is that the baker isn't making any money... Maybe he should find a business model or die.
Sure wish the real world was like that, I'd drive a Ferrari since I wouldn't want to pay for one.
World hunger would effectively be eliminated. But I'm sure people would complain about loss of potential profit anyway.
I'm assuming it would be like when you download a file: at no cost of time, money, or property to the baker, a copy would be made. He wouldn't even notice.
The damages to the copyright owner in terms of lost sales are the same whether he did it for profit or not.
And can you tell me what the damages were? Just what were they? How much potential profit did they actually lose? Even they don't know that!
I think you're building a straw man argument there.
Sure, if you're only talking absolute certainties (I can't predict the future with absolute certainty). But I think what he meant was that they will almost certainly abuse whatever powers they have if people mindlessly give it to them.
Assuming that information collected will be misused is just as bad as assuming that all information someone attempts to obfuscate is illegal. Isn't it?
No, I don't believe it is. Otherwise it would apparently be foolish to argue that the government shouldn't have the power to imprison people based on mere accusations because they'd probably abuse it. I'd say that it's a pretty good guess just by taking a look at various governments throughout history. People with a lot of power tend to abuse that power, so giving them power when it isn't absolutely necessary is probably a bad idea.
Citizens not wanting their government to have unchecked power is far different from assuming that a regular citizen is guilty of something for desiring privacy.
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
What? The fact that there aren't zero avenues of attack doesn't mean that people should expect the actual government to create laws that make it mandatory to keep information. That just makes the matter worse and expands the government's power.
Some protection is better than no protection.
If he's innocent, why is he hiding?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
If you're not 100% incorrect, then why did you make that comment?
I think the bigger problem is that the government is wasting their time (and everyone's tax dollars) with this nonsense.
What's the difference between that position
The difference? I'll know it when I see it...
are you seriously going to stick to that single comparison
Yeah, because to someone, that could make a difference. Someone would only be a hypocrite if they said that they hated all forms of advertising in existence and all methods of attracting attention.
If that's the case, there's no reasoning with you anyway.
People who disagree are just deluding themselves.
no, they aren't different things.
Yes, they are. One is a form of advertising on a website sapping your bandwidth (if you care), and the other is just people thinking you dress nicely. I don't believe commercials and advertisements on the Internet can be equated to walking into a bar wearing clothing that people may or may not think look nice.
Also, if you've ever dressed nicely before going out to a bar (or if you even have a job resume), then congratulations, you're an advertiser and a hypocrite.
What's with the misuse of the word "hypocrite"? Claiming to hate other people's ads on websites and dressing nicely at a bar are two different things. They didn't directly contradict anything they said.
I don't consider it worth violating everyone's rights because of the possibility that I might get killed. That's the attitude that leads to organizations such as the TSA.
If you can look at that sort of image and compartmentalize it as "just work," a "bunch of pixels on the screen," something is very wrong with you.
Anyone not like you must be defective! You didn't cry enough when you saw that image, you sociopath!
Have any other actions to confirm a crime?
Who cares about that!? He could, theoretically, kill someone. Actually, anyone could. And as everyone knows, a few deaths are far worse than violating everyone's freedom. Therefore, we must toss everyone in prison.
I thought so too. Didn't we crumple it up and toss it out around the time that we created the TSA, passed the Patriot Act, allowed warrantless tracking of cars, and came up with the idea of free speech zones? Actually, has there ever been a time when we followed the constitution? Listening to it would allow the communists/terrorists to win, so only a communist/terrorist enabler would do so...
but realistically
Realistically? Realistically they can never stop these websites. They can shut down a few at most (and if they're host in other countries, that's be difficult) and hope they don't lose the court cases that take place afterwards, but more will spring up in the meantime.
So, yeah, while changing copyright law is unlikely to happen for a while yet, realistically there's no way to stop copyright infringement.
and by stealing they have the moral high ground. Guess what - they don't.
Well, this matter is about copyright infringement. But whether or not they have the "moral high ground" (whatever that means) is completely subjective. I think it's rather pointless since it's not as if you're taking away the company's existing money, but it's still an opinion. The fact that it's consistently stated as a fact doesn't mean it is a fact.
But more importantly: I did not pirate until recently. I was in full boycott mode when it came to music, movies and games I didn't like.
But then some companies decided they could violate our rights to make profits - you've heard of SOPA I presume. From then on, this was war. I no longer care about being nice and doing the right thing and not using what I didn't pay for. Now I download for free from all the companies who supported SOPA or tried to make DRM circumvention illegal, etc.
What's that going to do? Whether you download it or boycott it, the effect is almost exactly the same (except that in one scenario, you have a game). It's not as if they lose money they already possess if you download their game, so you might as well have just continued boycotting them.
If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.
That was to make it more accurate, but I do feel that it was understandable to begin with. I don't see how anyone could read your comment and come to the conclusion that websites like Wikipedia or pictures of kittens are poisonous to children.
So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy?
That isn't necessary. There are things I believe should be done and things I believe shouldn't be done. I disagree with the censorship approach, but it is someone else's property, so there's not much that can be done about that other than voicing disagreement.
If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality.
I'm just Denying Reality. I couldn't disagree otherwise.
If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today.
Well, you're also not every child. But I did not say that you shouldn't save someone when their very life is in danger. That has nothing to do with children specifically. I'd hope people would save anyone of any age if their life was in danger.
It is common knowledge
Irrelevant.
Oh please. It is freaking obvious.
I did mention punishment, actually. I also mentioned that that doesn't necessarily bring immediate results. That doesn't have to be a requirement, though. But "forcing" someone to eat vegetables made me envision something that brings more immediate results.
(that a child must be treated as my buddy)
Don't know where you got that.
I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat
You know that? I see.
The latter are so few in number that you may as well be petrified of terrorism.
Or rather, incidents of people actually getting harmed by said perverts. That's even lower.
I seriously prefer education over censorship.
Straw man.
Is it? I think it's close enough, because I too know what you meant. "The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone."
Very well, I'll correct myself: Pornography and perverts on the Internet are not like poison. The latter are so few in number that you may as well be petrified of terrorism. As for the former, I believe comparing that to poison is simply preposterous.
Now there you have a false analogy.
I disagree entirely. I believe it teaches them to easily submit to authority, especially when they're arbitrary taught that certain things are 'poison' because some people don't like them.
For example, every sane person
No True Sane Person would argue otherwise.
accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables.
How would you force anyone to eat vegetables, anyway? Punishing them if they don't? Well, alright, but you didn't exactly force them to eat the vegetables. That would probably require you to force-feed it to them. Not sure I like that idea (if someone decided to do that).