I would like to see some evidence that the TSA is doing a horrible job
I'd personally say that there is no way for them to do a good job because I believe their job is evil to begin with. With increased cockpit security and the willingness of citizens to fight back, I honestly don't see why anyone would credit the TSA with stopping anything. Not that their performance matters, though.
personal experiences of relatively minor inconvenience
I don't think that things such as freedom or privacy are minor issues.
No, not really. We didn't really have a 9/11-scale attack before 9/11. But then 9/11 happened. So the fact that we haven't seen another one yet doesn't mean that we won't.
The real increases to security have been secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back (among other things). The TSA is just an organization that violates people's freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security.
You think the creation of the TSA is the only thing that has changed? What about increased cockpit security or the willingness of citizens to fight back? You seem to be assuming that it's all because of the TSA, but the other things that have changed seem to be vastly more effective than simply molesting people airports.
But even if they were effective, I believe they must be opposed. Violating people's privacy and freedoms for safety is not acceptable to me.
Uh, no. They're the government. As long as people pay attention and actually do something, they can be controlled. That's being optimistic, but it's at least possible.
So rather than having useless laws that won't stop abuse, just get rid of the systems that allow for abuse unless they're absolutely essential.
Maybe they believe the society described in 1984 is a utopia, or that when someone gets into the government, they become perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or abusing their powers.
Yes, all over a website. What a dangerous individual. Truly a threat to national security!
Wait... I think I see a little girl running a lemonade stand down the street... without a permit! The army needs to get involved in this serious matter!
Well, if your goal is simply to ban the advertising and (sort of) legalize the drugs, that's already a large change from the system we have now. While those changes are being put into effect, that rule could also be changed.
Take away the profit and you take away the reason to create new content to share.
What's with these "no new content" arguments? I highly doubt that there would be no new content whatsoever. That supposes that there are no people that would create free content simply because they love doing so, no people that would raise money using crowdfunding, and no people that would raise money with concerts (or some other method). The point is, I find it extremely highly unlikely that no new content would be created.
Yes I know fan movies will save us all but are you honestly pirating fan movies or "The avengers"?
That would depend on the person, wouldn't it?
I see the end coming and no one will be happy with the final outcome.
If they seriously can't find a way to earn money, I think they should fail, and they can take their ideas with them.
I know being realistic makes me a troll
1 + 1 = 3.
I know being absolutely correct makes me a troll...
See? I just said I was absolutely correct and demonized anyone who might suggest otherwise. That must mean I am correct!
If they are cheaply available, then the people without control will kill themselves off relatively quickly and harmlessly.
That's great. You'd think that proper warnings and actual education would prevent some of that. Not that it even matters.
And if they aren't dangerous, then what's wrong with them.
Huh?
Actually, I'm not in favor of total legalization.
You just said that them being illegal causes more problems than it solves.
The ONLY reason that I'm in favor of laws against drugs it to prohibit them being advertised.
Then just ban advertisements. You don't actually have to keep the drugs illegal to accomplish this.
I see absolutely no point in trying to get people to not ingest harmful things into their own bodies, and in fact, if the government is trying to force them not to, I see that as an unjustified infringement upon their freedoms.
They made a decision and that is the consequence of that action.
Yeah, and people living in dictatorships made decisions and met the consequences of those decisions. What's your point? That doesn't mean the punishment is just. Laws aren't always just.
I would be serious money that if drug mules were getting death sentences that was to be carried out in six months of less
I would bet serious money that I don't care whether or not that's true. For me, this is almost completely a matter of freedom (the cost of the enforcement adds a bit to it). I'm against punishing everyone (drug users, innocent people hurt by police enforcing drug laws, etc) for the actions of a few (drug users who commit crimes).
Again, these mentalities are reminding me of organizations like the TSA who will hurt any innocent, waste any amount of money, and infringe upon everyone's freedoms to get at a few criminals/terrorists.
Anything taken to extremes is bad.
Argument to moderation.
I have seen first hand and read about people getting addicted to drugs on the first hit.
That's fantastic, but from my perspective, you're too emotional about it. You seem to have adopted this "allow no casualties at the cost of freedom" approach (that doesn't work anyway).
For me, all I have to ask is whether or not it's a matter of freedom. I think it is, so the cost is irrelevant to me. Not that drug laws actually prevent people from getting drugs, that enforcement costs aren't astronomical, or that it doesn't cost quite a bit of money per person in jail, of course.
When has criminalizing something actually stopped it from happening?
It doesn't. Drug laws have never stopped any of these things.
Attitudes like this remind me of the TSA. "Anyone could be a terrorist. The solution is clearly to infringe upon everyone's rights by molesting them at airports!" That drug user might commit a crime while on drugs. Futilely attempt to ban all drugs for everyone while wasting countless amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process!
breaking into people's homes so they can steal to feed their habit
Theft is already illegal. Punish the ones that do steal and not the ones that don't. Anything else is very similar to collective/preemptive punishment.
If you're found transporting drugs, like in Singapore, that's the death sentence
Yes, I definitely want the government to have the power to execute people merely for transporting drugs that people willingly consume. No innocent person could ever be executed, the government would never abuse this, and executing people for transporting something is worthwhile.
None of this 5 years where my tax dollars are used to give them food and shelter.
So sorry that your tax dollars are being used for prisoners. Better that we kill everyone who ends up in prison! Anything to save a buck.
Only if they were actually punished, and I find that highly unlikely. I'd rather them have to appear in front of a judge to get the content removed. They likely wouldn't waste their time with small fries (so the chance of false take downs would decrease even further) and an actual human would be introduced in the process.
Why? I'd much rather they have to ask a judge to have the content removed. More difficult than just firing off take down notices? Yes. But at least that way actual people will be involved, a judge can evaluate the situation, and doing nonsense like this will be far more difficult. Unenforceable? That's their problem.
Even if done they're punished, I still don't like it. I believe being able to take things down with no judge involved is just asking for trouble.
Your own post points out why first sale doctrine doesn't make any sense for digital goods.
I meant the first sale doctrine in general. He said "Given it was conjured up in the stone age by slave owning wizards" as if insulting them.
And making a copy for the purpose of redistribution is an infringement of copyright.
Is it? Doesn't that depend on precedent? I thought I heard of a few cases dealing with this subject (not necessarily in the US). The point is, that doesn't necessarily need to be so (if you delete your own copy, most likely).
What does your most high and holy doctrine of first sale have to say about that?
For a similar result, simply send them a copy of the ebook and then delete your own. Now, I don't really see the point in deleting your own copy, but that's how you'd get a similar result.
Given it was conjured up in the stone age by slave owning wizards
That's funny, because copyright infringement itself seems like a petty thing. Why don't they hold themselves back instead of making you wait a "few days"?
But harming people is okay as long as you claim you only harmed them a little.
This process is a LOT better than what we had before.
But I don't think it's better than a situation where websites aren't liable and DMCA takedown notices just don't exist. They're abused too often, and there is never any punishment. Even if there were punishments, I don't care for guilty until proven innocent. Ask a court to order the material be removed if you want it gone that badly.
Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.
Except that the problem isn't solved. Oftentimes it's difficult or impossible to even get the video back up, and who the hell ever gets punished for fake notices?
This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.
Drugs can hurt people, so we should have some regulation of them.
Why bother? If people want to hurt themselves, let them. I believe anything else is just infringing upon people's freedom. I'd say we need to find a different way to solve the problem than regulation, because it's clearly not working (and I wouldn't want it anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to see some evidence that the TSA is doing a horrible job
I'd personally say that there is no way for them to do a good job because I believe their job is evil to begin with. With increased cockpit security and the willingness of citizens to fight back, I honestly don't see why anyone would credit the TSA with stopping anything. Not that their performance matters, though.
personal experiences of relatively minor inconvenience
I don't think that things such as freedom or privacy are minor issues.
No, not really. We didn't really have a 9/11-scale attack before 9/11. But then 9/11 happened. So the fact that we haven't seen another one yet doesn't mean that we won't.
The real increases to security have been secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back (among other things). The TSA is just an organization that violates people's freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security.
You think the creation of the TSA is the only thing that has changed? What about increased cockpit security or the willingness of citizens to fight back? You seem to be assuming that it's all because of the TSA, but the other things that have changed seem to be vastly more effective than simply molesting people airports.
But even if they were effective, I believe they must be opposed. Violating people's privacy and freedoms for safety is not acceptable to me.
Uh, no. They're the government. As long as people pay attention and actually do something, they can be controlled. That's being optimistic, but it's at least possible.
So rather than having useless laws that won't stop abuse, just get rid of the systems that allow for abuse unless they're absolutely essential.
Maybe they believe the society described in 1984 is a utopia, or that when someone gets into the government, they become perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or abusing their powers.
Right, how simple that is. I can just... move to another city! Well, when someone gives someone enough money to, they can.
Yes, all over a website. What a dangerous individual. Truly a threat to national security!
Wait... I think I see a little girl running a lemonade stand down the street... without a permit! The army needs to get involved in this serious matter!
Well, if your goal is simply to ban the advertising and (sort of) legalize the drugs, that's already a large change from the system we have now. While those changes are being put into effect, that rule could also be changed.
Take away the profit and you take away the reason to create new content to share.
What's with these "no new content" arguments? I highly doubt that there would be no new content whatsoever. That supposes that there are no people that would create free content simply because they love doing so, no people that would raise money using crowdfunding, and no people that would raise money with concerts (or some other method). The point is, I find it extremely highly unlikely that no new content would be created.
Yes I know fan movies will save us all but are you honestly pirating fan movies or "The avengers"?
That would depend on the person, wouldn't it?
I see the end coming and no one will be happy with the final outcome.
If they seriously can't find a way to earn money, I think they should fail, and they can take their ideas with them.
I know being realistic makes me a troll
1 + 1 = 3.
I know being absolutely correct makes me a troll...
See? I just said I was absolutely correct and demonized anyone who might suggest otherwise. That must mean I am correct!
If they are cheaply available, then the people without control will kill themselves off relatively quickly and harmlessly.
That's great. You'd think that proper warnings and actual education would prevent some of that. Not that it even matters.
And if they aren't dangerous, then what's wrong with them.
Huh?
Actually, I'm not in favor of total legalization.
You just said that them being illegal causes more problems than it solves.
The ONLY reason that I'm in favor of laws against drugs it to prohibit them being advertised.
Then just ban advertisements. You don't actually have to keep the drugs illegal to accomplish this.
I see absolutely no point in trying to get people to not ingest harmful things into their own bodies, and in fact, if the government is trying to force them not to, I see that as an unjustified infringement upon their freedoms.
Am I still a tinfoil-hatter, now?
Yes, because you seem to believe that the individuals who make up the government aren't perfect beings who could never do any wrong.
They made a decision and that is the consequence of that action.
Yeah, and people living in dictatorships made decisions and met the consequences of those decisions. What's your point? That doesn't mean the punishment is just. Laws aren't always just.
I would be serious money that if drug mules were getting death sentences that was to be carried out in six months of less
I would bet serious money that I don't care whether or not that's true. For me, this is almost completely a matter of freedom (the cost of the enforcement adds a bit to it). I'm against punishing everyone (drug users, innocent people hurt by police enforcing drug laws, etc) for the actions of a few (drug users who commit crimes).
Again, these mentalities are reminding me of organizations like the TSA who will hurt any innocent, waste any amount of money, and infringe upon everyone's freedoms to get at a few criminals/terrorists.
Anything taken to extremes is bad.
Argument to moderation.
I have seen first hand and read about people getting addicted to drugs on the first hit.
That's fantastic, but from my perspective, you're too emotional about it. You seem to have adopted this "allow no casualties at the cost of freedom" approach (that doesn't work anyway).
One has to ask which is less a drain on society
For me, all I have to ask is whether or not it's a matter of freedom. I think it is, so the cost is irrelevant to me. Not that drug laws actually prevent people from getting drugs, that enforcement costs aren't astronomical, or that it doesn't cost quite a bit of money per person in jail, of course.
When has criminalizing something actually stopped it from happening?
It doesn't. Drug laws have never stopped any of these things.
Attitudes like this remind me of the TSA. "Anyone could be a terrorist. The solution is clearly to infringe upon everyone's rights by molesting them at airports!" That drug user might commit a crime while on drugs. Futilely attempt to ban all drugs for everyone while wasting countless amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process!
Not that drug laws will prevent any of that.
breaking into people's homes so they can steal to feed their habit
Theft is already illegal. Punish the ones that do steal and not the ones that don't. Anything else is very similar to collective/preemptive punishment.
If you're found transporting drugs, like in Singapore, that's the death sentence
Yes, I definitely want the government to have the power to execute people merely for transporting drugs that people willingly consume. No innocent person could ever be executed, the government would never abuse this, and executing people for transporting something is worthwhile.
None of this 5 years where my tax dollars are used to give them food and shelter.
So sorry that your tax dollars are being used for prisoners. Better that we kill everyone who ends up in prison! Anything to save a buck.
Only if they were actually punished, and I find that highly unlikely. I'd rather them have to appear in front of a judge to get the content removed. They likely wouldn't waste their time with small fries (so the chance of false take downs would decrease even further) and an actual human would be introduced in the process.
Why? I'd much rather they have to ask a judge to have the content removed. More difficult than just firing off take down notices? Yes. But at least that way actual people will be involved, a judge can evaluate the situation, and doing nonsense like this will be far more difficult. Unenforceable? That's their problem.
Even if done they're punished, I still don't like it. I believe being able to take things down with no judge involved is just asking for trouble.
Your own post points out why first sale doctrine doesn't make any sense for digital goods.
I meant the first sale doctrine in general. He said "Given it was conjured up in the stone age by slave owning wizards" as if insulting them.
And making a copy for the purpose of redistribution is an infringement of copyright.
Is it? Doesn't that depend on precedent? I thought I heard of a few cases dealing with this subject (not necessarily in the US). The point is, that doesn't necessarily need to be so (if you delete your own copy, most likely).
What does your most high and holy doctrine of first sale have to say about that?
For a similar result, simply send them a copy of the ebook and then delete your own. Now, I don't really see the point in deleting your own copy, but that's how you'd get a similar result.
Given it was conjured up in the stone age by slave owning wizards
Really? It makes quite a bit of sense to me.
Or just get rid of DMCA take downs.
In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.
That's funny, because copyright infringement itself seems like a petty thing. Why don't they hold themselves back instead of making you wait a "few days"?
But harming people is okay as long as you claim you only harmed them a little.
This process is a LOT better than what we had before.
But I don't think it's better than a situation where websites aren't liable and DMCA takedown notices just don't exist. They're abused too often, and there is never any punishment. Even if there were punishments, I don't care for guilty until proven innocent. Ask a court to order the material be removed if you want it gone that badly.
Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.
Except that the problem isn't solved. Oftentimes it's difficult or impossible to even get the video back up, and who the hell ever gets punished for fake notices?
This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.
Perhaps Twitter should just ignore the calls for censorship much like people should probably just ignore the trolls.
Drugs can hurt people, so we should have some regulation of them.
Why bother? If people want to hurt themselves, let them. I believe anything else is just infringing upon people's freedom. I'd say we need to find a different way to solve the problem than regulation, because it's clearly not working (and I wouldn't want it anyway).