And why on earth would anyone visit the site and view the ads?
It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. Advertisements and premium accounts are their revenue source, not copyrighted works.
You can deny all you want that the value of Megaupload was the appeal of copyrighted content
This is a straw man. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care what the users go there for as I feel it is irrelevant.
I believe it's money well spent because you have a cynical dickhead like K.D. profiting off the hard work of people who worked very hard to create this content.
This will do absolutely zero good. Profiting off of it or not, it makes no difference. There are many other sites from which to download things, this trial costs a lot of money, the guy was in another country, and the matter is so petty (an unquantifiable loss of potential gain) that it's not even worth it.
Read the indictment which asserts that he actively strove to make copyrighted works available not just to their "owners" but to the internet at large for the express purpose of making profit.
That's not what I said. I said that he profited off of ads and premium accounts. It isn't as if the copyrighted works were locked away and they were selling copies of them.
I think it's ridiculous that you think anyone really gives a fuck about Megaupload except to the extent that it could provide them with free access to copyrighted content they never paid for.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. But... since when do I think that? I don't really care what people go there for.
So you believe Herr Fatass should be able to profit by intentionally taking other people's copyrighted work
As far as I'm aware, he didn't take anything. And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
actively making it available not just to its owners but to the world at large
All of this could be argued for any website. If you want to argue that he knew about it, that's a different matter.
and selling ads to the consumers without any license from the original copyright owners
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
Yes, I believe this is a complete and utter waste of time. There are plenty of other places to download what you want. And wasting so much money going after someone in a different country because they run a website that allows certain people to store copyrighted content? Really? Clearly the fact that some people may or may not be losing potential profit is a national security emergency!
I have plenty of choices. Let's see... Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast! Oh, and Comcast, too! Unfortunately, AT&T isn't in the area yet, but there are still plenty of choices!
Really? So because other people are allegedly criminals, I should have my privacy violated? A good way to punish everyone. I don't think it works like that, nor do I think it should. Stopping these supposed criminals is their job, and even if I could help out, I don't believe they should be able to frisk random people just because of that.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced.
Even if something was lost (at most, potential profit, money that they never had, would be lost), nothing was stolen. The 'pirate' has not taken anything from someone else and gained their copy. I don't know what "value" you're speaking of, but I certainly don't think the price drops each time something gets downloaded. And since you can make infinite copies even without the original artist knowing, there is no reason that it would.
But just to take that argument a little further, next you have to remember that each copy still has some kind of value.
That doesn't matter. You're still simply making a copy. No one else lost anything except perhaps the potential to gain money that they never had to begin with.
They're simply using a tool (in this case, a website) to give a copy of something to someone. If the website didn't exist, they'd likely use other means. The video has to be downloaded to view it, after all.
I don't see what ads have to do with anything, either. You can't have ads simply because some of the content on your website (temporary or not) might be copyrighted? That seems rather absurd.
Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.
The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not bad.
But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.
What? It looks to me like he was just saying that some can be more evil than others but the less evil ones can still be evil.
Opposing progress is perfectly understandable when progress will make you jobless and therefore unable to feed, clothe and house yourself.
It's understandable, but still foolish. It's clear that we don't need such inefficient workers anymore. Either they find something else to do, or suffer. I don't think "hold back technology" should ever be an option.
Same logic used to try to tax things deemed "unhealthy." Problem is, it seems to be a false dilemma. "Either get out of society, or stay and let me tax everything you do if it may affect me in some indirect way!" But there is a third option: in order to maintain a society that is truly free, pay the costs. I guess freedom isn't important if it means slightly higher taxes, huh?
Even if what you said is true, that doesn't mean all such people have autism or Aspergers syndrome.
I can't see it as anything more than liking something more than other people. The need to characterize them as "insane" or attempt to diagnose them with random disorders seems short-sighted to me.
asserting a social relationship with a domestic animal on the same level and depth as a human is solidly in the middle of "mental disorder."
Only because it deviates from the norm, I suspect. I believe parents driven by instinct can't imagine another "healthy" person having different feelings than themselves.
A more practical question is: What percentage of people who love both pets and their children would equate the two?
I agree that it's a more practical question, but even among people who haven't had kids, the answer remains unknown. This would be the best starting point, however.
What happens in every single case I've observed is that the pet instantly becomes far less important.
No surprise there. For some (probably many) people, pure instinct takes over. From what I've seen, plenty of people become irrational after they have children and easily fall for any "for the children" arguments. Some don't, however. In that same way, someone else could love a pet as they love a child. Different from the norm? Perhaps. But I don't see what's impossible about it.
and I suspect the exceptions would be people who are emotionally damaged in some way.
Why? And how do you define "emotionally damaged"? I do not understand what the problem is with caring about something more than others.
But it's a stretch to argue that a normal, healthy human being
What is a "normal, healthy human being"? Why is it objectively good to be a "normal, healthy human being," if that is the case? In my experience, I've noticed that people tend to equate "not normal" with "bad." This is not necessarily the case; different does not have to be "bad." Anyone who is different in a way that some people do not like will be labeled "unhealthy" by some arbitrary standard.
Slashdot Mirror
You conveniently ignore the fact that nobody in the world would want either without the illegal copyrighted content.
"nobody in the world"? Well, that's quite the stretch, isn't it? That still has nothing to do with what I said, anyway.
You'd feel differently if you had a personal interest in the matter.
That's insanely off-topic. Still, it doesn't even matter what I'd feel in that scenario. That wouldn't make my current arguments wrong.
"You'd feel differently if..." isn't even an argument.
Profiting off it makes all the difference.
Not to me.
And why on earth would anyone visit the site and view the ads?
It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. Advertisements and premium accounts are their revenue source, not copyrighted works.
You can deny all you want that the value of Megaupload was the appeal of copyrighted content
This is a straw man. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care what the users go there for as I feel it is irrelevant.
I believe it's money well spent because you have a cynical dickhead like K.D. profiting off the hard work of people who worked very hard to create this content.
This will do absolutely zero good. Profiting off of it or not, it makes no difference. There are many other sites from which to download things, this trial costs a lot of money, the guy was in another country, and the matter is so petty (an unquantifiable loss of potential gain) that it's not even worth it.
It's wrong.
According to you.
Read the indictment which asserts that he actively strove to make copyrighted works available not just to their "owners" but to the internet at large for the express purpose of making profit.
That's not what I said. I said that he profited off of ads and premium accounts. It isn't as if the copyrighted works were locked away and they were selling copies of them.
I think it's ridiculous that you think anyone really gives a fuck about Megaupload except to the extent that it could provide them with free access to copyrighted content they never paid for.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. But... since when do I think that? I don't really care what people go there for.
I believe it's money well spent.
Why?
So you believe Herr Fatass should be able to profit by intentionally taking other people's copyrighted work
As far as I'm aware, he didn't take anything. And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
actively making it available not just to its owners but to the world at large
All of this could be argued for any website. If you want to argue that he knew about it, that's a different matter.
and selling ads to the consumers without any license from the original copyright owners
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
Yes, I believe this is a complete and utter waste of time. There are plenty of other places to download what you want. And wasting so much money going after someone in a different country because they run a website that allows certain people to store copyrighted content? Really? Clearly the fact that some people may or may not be losing potential profit is a national security emergency!
Hopefully the stupid legal actions of law enforcement don't jeopardize the case
I believe the most idiotic legal action of them all was going after someone for this in the first place. A colossal waste of taxpayer money, I think.
what is extreme?
Along with "obscene," everything that the government doesn't like.
"They started it!" is a good excuse now? Interesting.
that showed them in a light that wasnt the reality of it
How did you come to that conclusion?
What the police do is those peoples own fault.
Really now? That first part contradicts the second.
I have plenty of choices. Let's see... Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast! Oh, and Comcast, too! Unfortunately, AT&T isn't in the area yet, but there are still plenty of choices!
Really? So because other people are allegedly criminals, I should have my privacy violated? A good way to punish everyone. I don't think it works like that, nor do I think it should. Stopping these supposed criminals is their job, and even if I could help out, I don't believe they should be able to frisk random people just because of that.
Which doesn't have much to do with the subject of theft. It does not really matter what they depend on.
They said "monetary value." If they wanted to pay for it, they'd do just that (assuming they had money). I think it's quite clear that many don't.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced.
Even if something was lost (at most, potential profit, money that they never had, would be lost), nothing was stolen. The 'pirate' has not taken anything from someone else and gained their copy. I don't know what "value" you're speaking of, but I certainly don't think the price drops each time something gets downloaded. And since you can make infinite copies even without the original artist knowing, there is no reason that it would.
But just to take that argument a little further, next you have to remember that each copy still has some kind of value.
That doesn't matter. You're still simply making a copy. No one else lost anything except perhaps the potential to gain money that they never had to begin with.
They're simply using a tool (in this case, a website) to give a copy of something to someone. If the website didn't exist, they'd likely use other means. The video has to be downloaded to view it, after all.
I don't see what ads have to do with anything, either. You can't have ads simply because some of the content on your website (temporary or not) might be copyrighted? That seems rather absurd.
The problem with moral relativism
What does that have to do with moral relativism?
can definitely not be generalized as "evil".
Apparently it can.
Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.
The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not bad.
But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.
What? It looks to me like he was just saying that some can be more evil than others but the less evil ones can still be evil.
For Fromm, love isn't a feeling
If you did not feel anything towards them, it's unlikely that your actions would make it appear as if you loved them.
For Fromm, pets cannot advance spiritually.
I disagree with this, as well. Even if someone doesn't change, that doesn't mean you won't love them.
Many places are much warmer and people can't afford AC.
Why even bother owning things? Some people are extremely poor! If I can live without it, I shouldn't have it at all!
Opposing progress is perfectly understandable when progress will make you jobless and therefore unable to feed, clothe and house yourself.
It's understandable, but still foolish. It's clear that we don't need such inefficient workers anymore. Either they find something else to do, or suffer. I don't think "hold back technology" should ever be an option.
Same logic used to try to tax things deemed "unhealthy." Problem is, it seems to be a false dilemma. "Either get out of society, or stay and let me tax everything you do if it may affect me in some indirect way!" But there is a third option: in order to maintain a society that is truly free, pay the costs. I guess freedom isn't important if it means slightly higher taxes, huh?
Then liberals would throw hissy fits over the entire thing
I think just about anyone would disagree with that. Taking over countries for the "greater good"? How arrogant can you get?
but don't assert random exceptions.
It seems like a rather meaningless label if the individuals are otherwise 'well-adjusted.'
'Deviates from the norm' to a sufficient degree that it has been clearly labeled as a disorder.
Again, seems rather meaningless to me in some cases.
Isn't that ok?
I don't see why not.
Even if what you said is true, that doesn't mean all such people have autism or Aspergers syndrome.
I can't see it as anything more than liking something more than other people. The need to characterize them as "insane" or attempt to diagnose them with random disorders seems short-sighted to me.
asserting a social relationship with a domestic animal on the same level and depth as a human is solidly in the middle of "mental disorder."
Only because it deviates from the norm, I suspect. I believe parents driven by instinct can't imagine another "healthy" person having different feelings than themselves.
There are lots of cases where we can objectively, scientifically prove that people are unhealthy.
That's why I asked.
Why do you think that all differences are inherently equally healthy?
When did I say that? I simply stated that sometimes people arbitrarily label those who are different themselves as unhealthy.
It really depends on your definition of "healthy." And furthermore, whether or not it's bad to be unhealthy truly is subjective.
That depends on who you ask.
A more practical question is: What percentage of people who love both pets and their children would equate the two?
I agree that it's a more practical question, but even among people who haven't had kids, the answer remains unknown. This would be the best starting point, however.
What happens in every single case I've observed is that the pet instantly becomes far less important.
No surprise there. For some (probably many) people, pure instinct takes over. From what I've seen, plenty of people become irrational after they have children and easily fall for any "for the children" arguments. Some don't, however. In that same way, someone else could love a pet as they love a child. Different from the norm? Perhaps. But I don't see what's impossible about it.
and I suspect the exceptions would be people who are emotionally damaged in some way.
Why? And how do you define "emotionally damaged"? I do not understand what the problem is with caring about something more than others.
But it's a stretch to argue that a normal, healthy human being
What is a "normal, healthy human being"? Why is it objectively good to be a "normal, healthy human being," if that is the case? In my experience, I've noticed that people tend to equate "not normal" with "bad." This is not necessarily the case; different does not have to be "bad." Anyone who is different in a way that some people do not like will be labeled "unhealthy" by some arbitrary standard.