Yes, the "war against piracy" will never be won. Just like the "war against drugs", "war against terror", "war against racism", "war against drink driving", "war against rape" or "war against murder"
Why would you list the "war against drugs" or the "war against terror"? The former is a colossal waste of money that infringes upon people's freedom by attempting to stop them from doing things that only harm themselves, and the latter is continually used as an excuse to strip us of our rights (think TSA and Patriot Act). I don't care for pointless "wars."
None of those have anything to do with copying, though.
And hell, let's remove the laws against it while we're there, just for the fun of it.
Regarding three of those (drugs, copying, and stopping the senseless violation of our rights in exchange for security), I think that's a good idea.
Do you believe explaining your reasonable belief will stop people who are currently kicking the crap out of you?
What does that have to do with what I said? All I did was disagree with the actions of those who beat him up. I never said anything about believing that disagreeing will stop them.
you seem to be unable to comprehend that something can happen or a state true regardless of whether or not you believe that is something that only reasonable, enlightened people would do, or represents a morally correct situation.
And one day, 20 kids ganged up on me and beat the shit out of me outside school.
Wow, might does make right! I'll remember that next time I want someone to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. If I can beat them up, then their own conclusion must be wrong.
Clearly physical violence is the best way to handle everything!
That would be up to me to decide whether or not a class action is worth it. Not only is it unlikely that most people would bother taking the company to small claims, but if they want in on a class action lawsuit, then that's their choice. I don't understand why anyone would want to take away this choice, which is theirs, from them. At the very least, I don't believe random EULAs should be able to take away this choice.
Yeah, and how many people are going to do that when the damages are small? Most likely, not very many. Which means the company can pretty much do whatever they please.
Besides, if I want to enter a class action lawsuit, that's my choice. If I want to risk getting less money than I lost from getting ripped off, that is, again, my choice. I don't see why people want to remove that choice from individuals just because they hate lawyers.
The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.
Because, as said in other comments, not very many people will be willing to go to even small claims court to sue for small damages. This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.
Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house?
You hate lawyers so class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed? I don't understand this mentality at all. If the company was the one who ripped me off, I'd rather have the money be in the hands of the "weasely fucker" than the company.
Don't we have enough bullshit in the courts today?
Obviously they shouldn't be able to win frivolous lawsuits.
None of those three things really need to happen. You do not need to have a "need" to sue someone in order to be able to file a lawsuit. Valve is perfectly capable of ripping people off, and if it's done en masse, a class action lawsuit may be the appropriate option.
How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?
Class action lawsuits are clearly not so you can make a lot of money. I'd say they're more for teaching the company a lesson. And frankly, I would find it absolutely idiotic if a mere EULA was able to take that right away.
Really? To me, it depends entirely on whether or not it's likely they'll carry it out. You can probably tell just from his messages that it isn't likely.
they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.
Well, I honestly hope that more of these people look into ways to make themselves more anonymous so that it'll be far more difficult to do anything. Then again, no one seems willing to accept a few casualties caused by unlikely events (you can see this mentality with some TSA/Patriot Act supporters), so perhaps they wouldn't simply give up.
However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.
I don't see what that has to do with whether or not it's a waste of money. As if a grieving family determines truth...
The fact that he asked you for proof doesn't indicate that he believes the opposite. He could just be someone that values people actually proving what they're claiming for all you know.
You guys are like a cargo-cult.
All of the ones you replied to? You seem to be assuming that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be part of the "other side." Apparently you can't make an argument that some group of people might make without being part of that group yourself...
and then declared everyone who dares point out the gaping flaws in your argument as irrational.
But of course, they'll believe they're correct, just as you might.
Yes, the chance of murder is always worth investigating.
Okay. Let's investigate... nearly everyone, then. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, sometimes jokingly, sometimes angrily, "I'm going to kill you!" Let's just waste a bunch of tax dollars on frivolous nonsense just because some people can't handle the fact that they can't prevent all murders. Perfect solutions don't really exist, but I can accept casualties in exchange for freedom and in exchange for not wasting public resources on nonsense like this. That's my opinion, anyway.
they are making death threats
And I've already explained: I don't believe that alone should be illegal.
I'm sorry you have to miss out on all those hilarious airport bomb jokes that just can't wait until you've left the airport
For no reason. You think that this makes you safe? It doesn't. Not anymore so than being molested at an airport does.
it was that we don't have to waste tremendous resources anymore chasing idiots who aren't serious about their death threats.
Now if only that could truly be put to the test. I doubt you'd be so optimistic about it.
The fact is, most people probably, even if they're not doing anything illegal, want to hide certain things. Most people feel things such as embarrassment that makes them want to hide certain things. The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is not only nonsensical, but it's used mainly by people who desire to take away your freedoms.
So why not or allow me (or the government) to install surveillance cameras in every room of your house? Normal humans apparently don't get embarrassed or simply desire privacy, apparently. Because you've arbitrarily decided that the kind of privacy you don't care about aren't important, no one should have them.
Well, yes. That was my opinion. Besides, you can make more than one argument at a time.
The more effecive argument, IMHO, is that it is wrong to store data about innocent (in the legal sense) people.
That is more important to me. However, the problem is that some average people honestly believe the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" arguments (or similar ones like "to stop the terrorists" or "for the children"). They'll twist any opposing argument to make themselves look good.
the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?
There are numerous personal reasons someone could want privacy. Let's just allow the government to install surveillance equipment in every room of every house. We don't have privacy, after all! So instead of fighting back, let's just give up and make it worse! After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the "war against piracy" will never be won. Just like the "war against drugs", "war against terror", "war against racism", "war against drink driving", "war against rape" or "war against murder"
Why would you list the "war against drugs" or the "war against terror"? The former is a colossal waste of money that infringes upon people's freedom by attempting to stop them from doing things that only harm themselves, and the latter is continually used as an excuse to strip us of our rights (think TSA and Patriot Act). I don't care for pointless "wars."
None of those have anything to do with copying, though.
And hell, let's remove the laws against it while we're there, just for the fun of it.
Regarding three of those (drugs, copying, and stopping the senseless violation of our rights in exchange for security), I think that's a good idea.
I can see why someone would be a bit scared of, for instance, the Christian god. Seems like a bit of a tyrant...
Any DRM mechanism is likely to be worthless
So, basically the same as right now, then? DRM is already ineffective.
Is anyone ACTUALLY under the delusion that these people didn't actually download the material in question?
I don't believe that's any excuse for harming the ones who didn't.
Furthermore, prove that they did download it.
Looks to me like I was mocking the ones who beat him up. I don't see where I said anything about him.
Do you believe explaining your reasonable belief will stop people who are currently kicking the crap out of you?
What does that have to do with what I said? All I did was disagree with the actions of those who beat him up. I never said anything about believing that disagreeing will stop them.
you seem to be unable to comprehend that something can happen or a state true regardless of whether or not you believe that is something that only reasonable, enlightened people would do, or represents a morally correct situation.
No, that's just your own straw man.
A quite reasonable interpretation of human history is that more issues have been settled by force than by reason.
Well, I don't think it's reasonable to beat people up merely for disagreeing with you.
And one day, 20 kids ganged up on me and beat the shit out of me outside school.
Wow, might does make right! I'll remember that next time I want someone to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. If I can beat them up, then their own conclusion must be wrong.
Clearly physical violence is the best way to handle everything!
You are "put" in it, unless you take proactive steps to get out of it.
I've heard of that before. That actually sounds like a problem.
And as to the other argument being put forth in this thread, it is not the civil lawyer's job to "punish" a poorly acting company.
It might be the intentions of those in the class action lawsuit.
We have state and federal entities for that which we have already paid for.
I'll be waiting. In any case, I don't think any of this is a reason to remove the choice, and especially not a reason to enforce ridiculous EULAs.
Now you tell ME Gadget Guy, which is better?
That would be up to me to decide whether or not a class action is worth it. Not only is it unlikely that most people would bother taking the company to small claims, but if they want in on a class action lawsuit, then that's their choice. I don't understand why anyone would want to take away this choice, which is theirs, from them. At the very least, I don't believe random EULAs should be able to take away this choice.
The answer is to sue individually
Yeah, and how many people are going to do that when the damages are small? Most likely, not very many. Which means the company can pretty much do whatever they please.
Besides, if I want to enter a class action lawsuit, that's my choice. If I want to risk getting less money than I lost from getting ripped off, that is, again, my choice. I don't see why people want to remove that choice from individuals just because they hate lawyers.
The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.
Because, as said in other comments, not very many people will be willing to go to even small claims court to sue for small damages. This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.
Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house?
You hate lawyers so class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed? I don't understand this mentality at all. If the company was the one who ripped me off, I'd rather have the money be in the hands of the "weasely fucker" than the company.
Don't we have enough bullshit in the courts today?
Obviously they shouldn't be able to win frivolous lawsuits.
None of those three things really need to happen. You do not need to have a "need" to sue someone in order to be able to file a lawsuit. Valve is perfectly capable of ripping people off, and if it's done en masse, a class action lawsuit may be the appropriate option.
How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?
Class action lawsuits are clearly not so you can make a lot of money. I'd say they're more for teaching the company a lesson. And frankly, I would find it absolutely idiotic if a mere EULA was able to take that right away.
Next time I will save myself the trouble of composing a cogent response.
Which I replied to. I just didn't agree with it. But if you want to mod me down for disagreeing with you, I guess there isn't much I can do.
Threatening someone's life is serious business.
Really? To me, it depends entirely on whether or not it's likely they'll carry it out. You can probably tell just from his messages that it isn't likely.
they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.
Well, I honestly hope that more of these people look into ways to make themselves more anonymous so that it'll be far more difficult to do anything. Then again, no one seems willing to accept a few casualties caused by unlikely events (you can see this mentality with some TSA/Patriot Act supporters), so perhaps they wouldn't simply give up.
However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.
I don't see what that has to do with whether or not it's a waste of money. As if a grieving family determines truth...
It honestly doesn't bother me.
Really? Well, it likely bothers almost everyone else, and most people probably aren't doing anything that would normally be defined as "wrong."
then I can be pretty sure it isn't a real threat.
No. You can't be sure of anything, which is the point. There might be a 0.000000001% chance that he's serious, and that's worth investigating.
If some random guy I've never met tweets me the same thing, I have no idea.
Don't worry. Your chances of getting murdered are pretty slim!
I can pose an alternate situation for you: an abusive husband tells his wife the same thing.
Good thing that that didn't happen.
It's all about context.
Which we don't have here.
But pursuing and even searching anyone making death threats in an airport (or in a random tweet, as in the post) is common sense.
If you're even slightly okay with punishing everyone because you feel it makes you more secure in some way, then I'll never agree with you.
And just because it doesn't eliminate every threat, it can still help make us safer.
But does it?
Prosecute the idiots who are wasting resources by sending death threats to people they've never even met.
They're not wasting resources; the people going after them are.
Perhaps we simply have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps.
Implicitly, by asking for proof.
The fact that he asked you for proof doesn't indicate that he believes the opposite. He could just be someone that values people actually proving what they're claiming for all you know.
You guys are like a cargo-cult.
All of the ones you replied to? You seem to be assuming that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be part of the "other side." Apparently you can't make an argument that some group of people might make without being part of that group yourself...
and then declared everyone who dares point out the gaping flaws in your argument as irrational.
But of course, they'll believe they're correct, just as you might.
Yes, the chance of murder is always worth investigating.
Okay. Let's investigate... nearly everyone, then. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, sometimes jokingly, sometimes angrily, "I'm going to kill you!" Let's just waste a bunch of tax dollars on frivolous nonsense just because some people can't handle the fact that they can't prevent all murders. Perfect solutions don't really exist, but I can accept casualties in exchange for freedom and in exchange for not wasting public resources on nonsense like this. That's my opinion, anyway.
they are making death threats
And I've already explained: I don't believe that alone should be illegal.
I'm sorry you have to miss out on all those hilarious airport bomb jokes that just can't wait until you've left the airport
For no reason. You think that this makes you safe? It doesn't. Not anymore so than being molested at an airport does.
it was that we don't have to waste tremendous resources anymore chasing idiots who aren't serious about their death threats.
Then don't waste them. My point exactly.
Now if only that could truly be put to the test. I doubt you'd be so optimistic about it.
The fact is, most people probably, even if they're not doing anything illegal, want to hide certain things. Most people feel things such as embarrassment that makes them want to hide certain things. The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is not only nonsensical, but it's used mainly by people who desire to take away your freedoms.
So why not or allow me (or the government) to install surveillance cameras in every room of your house? Normal humans apparently don't get embarrassed or simply desire privacy, apparently. Because you've arbitrarily decided that the kind of privacy you don't care about aren't important, no one should have them.
Waste of money is incredibly subjective
Well, yes. That was my opinion. Besides, you can make more than one argument at a time.
The more effecive argument, IMHO, is that it is wrong to store data about innocent (in the legal sense) people.
That is more important to me. However, the problem is that some average people honestly believe the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" arguments (or similar ones like "to stop the terrorists" or "for the children"). They'll twist any opposing argument to make themselves look good.
the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?
There are numerous personal reasons someone could want privacy. Let's just allow the government to install surveillance equipment in every room of every house. We don't have privacy, after all! So instead of fighting back, let's just give up and make it worse! After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?
Even if 99% of them are empty
I feel that makes my point even stronger. If 99% of them won't do anything, don't go after them just because 1% of them might.
How many people joke about bombs in an airport anymore?
What an accomplishment that is! No one is allowed to make jokes anymore out of fear of being punished by a robotic government.
Sorry, but I have no interest in TSA-like mentalities.