They're not shooting the "robber", they're pulling a gun on him and demanding his wallet.
My question was not about shooting a robber. I asked, whether the lie of threatening to shoot a robber — without having a loaded weapon — constitutes fraud.
And this is a "yes or no" question... Awaiting your response.
Are you seriously contending, that without taxes our air would've been like that of Bejing? China's taxes are quite high...
Since you don't want to pay them, it's only fair that you reimburse me for that.
Who the fart are you? And what else are going to claim credit for? Am I to thank you for not poisoning my water too? For not beating me up?
It is fine for the government to protect citizens from crime — that is, what taxes are for: to ensure, bad things are not done to us.
But this conversation is about ensuring good things are done to us — subject to the government's understanding of what "good" means. And that is a road to slavery — workers on plantations had free food, shelter, education, entertainment, and healthcare, you'll recall, in exchange for work. They weren't paid for their work (100% taxation), but they didn't need money either, because everything useful — in their betters' educated opinion — was provided to them. The slaves hated it, for some reason... Probably, because they wanted to be able to make their own choices. And so do I.
I prefer Sweden, actually.
Well, what's stopping you? Why don't you take your Statism some place else and leave this used-to-be Libertarian country to us, Libertarians?
But you just can't, can you... A classic Illiberal approach to things: what you don't like must be made illegal, and what you like must be mandatory...
assuming [...] that the purpose of these notices is in fact to suppress illegal activity, rather than to line the pockets of the [...] "copyright holder".
Distinction without difference. When shooting a robber for example, are you taking another human being's precious life to stop the crime in progress, or to protect your own flabby body and/or meager possessions?
The business model is based on the "voluntary" fines, not on the original content.
Their business model is based on producing content, which other people — quite obviously — desire. If it really was as bad as the infringers often imply (paradoxically), nobody would try to copy it in the first place...
Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb).
When used to suppress illegal activity (such as copyright infringement), lying is neither "unfair" nor "unlawful" gain.
Are you committing fraud, when threatening to shoot a burglar? If one doesn't actually have a weapon and would not shoot a human being anyway — such a person is lying to the criminal and deceiving him to protect his own person and property. Is that fraud?
And that's the other evil of it — not only will taxpayers be forced to pay for it, the actual courses will be decided by our benevolent and omniscient rulers. Do you suppose, it will be possible to avoid taking "Womyn's Studies" or "Climate Change Mitigation"?
Copyright infringement is far less serious than extortion.
I am not sure, I agree with that in general. Some kinds of infringement may be less serious than some kinds of extortion, perhaps, but here is perfectly legal speech being used to suppress illegal actions. Shrug...
I'm also quite certain, that you'd call it "extortion" even if every word in the notice were perfectly truthful.
In a nutshell, Rightscorp and BMG are using the notice-and-notice system to require ISPs to send threats and misstatements of Canadian law in an effort to extract payments based on unproven infringement allegations.
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
It is, however, illegal to infringe on copyrights. If the legal lying helps reduce the illegal infringement, I'm fine with it.
You asked for citations, you have been given a link to a website which contains hundreds of them.
If it does have "hundreds", you wouldn't have had a problem quoting one or two (as slew just did above):
Your honor! The accused is guilty! Just search this web-site for evidence.
That said, slew has posted something above from Leviticus, that may be a good (counter)example to what I said earlier... I'll have to do my own research on that before admitting it.
But rapists are made by society, just as terrorists are made by society. Dealing with that root cause isn't about absolving the criminals of their responsibility.
It is absolving them. Perhaps, not completely but partially. And that can not stand — however small the part. The below statements are equally false and endorsing of evil:
She had a floral design on her black hijab (or mini-skirt), so it is understandable, the men wanted her and someone raped her;
Zimmerman followed Trayvon around, so it is understandable, Martin hated him and proceeded to beat him;
These White Christian cartoonists didn't care for the dire economic situation of the dark-skinned Muslim French, so it is understandable, the Muslims disliked them and some of them shot them up
We can continue to jail both rapists and terrorists while [...]
Yes, this may be a fine public policy. But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
It's not like us westerners live up to our professed ideals of truth, justice and democracy either...
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
Do the roughly half a million Muslim African-Americans hold the same views as those of Arab descent? How about the Muslims from India?
If they don't, then they are either hiding it, or are ignorant — possibly, because they can't read the original Koran in Arabic themselves. For the scripture is quite explicit...
No, I don't think, this is due to race or ethnicity — there are plenty of Arab Christians, for example, and they aren't anywhere as crazy as the men being discussed.
I don't necessarily think any victim-blaming was going on.
Whenever something the victim has said or done is used to excuse — or even merely explain — an attack on him, it is victim-blaming. When his actions/words were perfectly legal — whether it is the revealing clothing, or following a suspicious character on public street, or mocking somebody's religion, or even "not caring" for somebody's dire economic situation — such victim-blaming becomes abhorrent.
Poor people with no future and therefore nothing to lose do bad things.
Citation needed. While we do not (yet) know the background of these criminals, the Tsarnaev brothers were reasonably comfortable. Palestinians in Gaza are much wealthier than Egyptians behind the border. 9/11-attackers were from Saudi Arabia — and although not all residents of that country are rich, all citizens are very well off. Bin Laden was a bona-fide billionaire...
Poverty may or may not increase the number of property crimes, but it does not make one a terrorist, from what I see.
If you can do something to fix that problem, you will decrease the number of desperate people doing desperate thing.
The assholes responsible for the attack being discussed were not desperate. Nor did they do a "desperate thing". Off-topic much?
Just as was done with Christianity (stoning adulterers and witches, killing homosexuals etc)
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
Slashdot Mirror
My question was not about shooting a robber. I asked, whether the lie of threatening to shoot a robber — without having a loaded weapon — constitutes fraud.
And this is a "yes or no" question... Awaiting your response.
Are you seriously contending, that without taxes our air would've been like that of Bejing? China's taxes are quite high...
Who the fart are you? And what else are going to claim credit for? Am I to thank you for not poisoning my water too? For not beating me up?
It is fine for the government to protect citizens from crime — that is, what taxes are for: to ensure, bad things are not done to us.
But this conversation is about ensuring good things are done to us — subject to the government's understanding of what "good" means. And that is a road to slavery — workers on plantations had free food, shelter, education, entertainment, and healthcare, you'll recall, in exchange for work. They weren't paid for their work (100% taxation), but they didn't need money either, because everything useful — in their betters' educated opinion — was provided to them. The slaves hated it, for some reason... Probably, because they wanted to be able to make their own choices. And so do I.
Well, what's stopping you? Why don't you take your Statism some place else and leave this used-to-be Libertarian country to us, Libertarians?
But you just can't, can you... A classic Illiberal approach to things: what you don't like must be made illegal, and what you like must be mandatory...
I think, we are done here.
Well, then you breath your small part, and I'll breath mine. Don't try to sell me yours.
Why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba instead? Everything is free (or 90+ percent subsidized) there — in exchange for 90+ % effective taxes...
Yes, I'll pay for each foot of the road to whoever owns it. As for fresh air, it is not yours to sell, so bugger off...
Before I read the rest of your rant, show me, where I am saying anything about a particular race in this thread.
Why don't I pay for what I actually use? And you pay for what you use?
Not by you, though, he-he...
Distinction without difference. When shooting a robber for example, are you taking another human being's precious life to stop the crime in progress, or to protect your own flabby body and/or meager possessions?
Their business model is based on producing content, which other people — quite obviously — desire. If it really was as bad as the infringers often imply (paradoxically), nobody would try to copy it in the first place...
What's "malicious" about upholding one's copyright?
Only if you refund all my taxes — and not tax me ever again. Deal?
He-he... Hating "on" Libertarians, I see... Goog — mere ten years ago you barely knew, who we are.
No, it does not. Fraud:
When used to suppress illegal activity (such as copyright infringement), lying is neither "unfair" nor "unlawful" gain.
Are you committing fraud, when threatening to shoot a burglar? If one doesn't actually have a weapon and would not shoot a human being anyway — such a person is lying to the criminal and deceiving him to protect his own person and property. Is that fraud?
And thus begins the road to ruin. No, it is not Ok to force people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for other people's anything. It worked so well for the public schools, which now cost 4 times more per pupil, than in 1960-ies, we are dizzy with success, aren't we — even if 2/3rd of the nation's 8th graders can't be said to read "proficiently".
And that's the other evil of it — not only will taxpayers be forced to pay for it, the actual courses will be decided by our benevolent and omniscient rulers. Do you suppose, it will be possible to avoid taking "Womyn's Studies" or "Climate Change Mitigation"?
That's about tort — not about legality or illegality.
Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.
IANAL, but suppressing copyright infringement is neither unfair nor unlawful. Whatever else may be wrong about it, fraud it is not.
Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?
I am not sure, I agree with that in general. Some kinds of infringement may be less serious than some kinds of extortion, perhaps, but here is perfectly legal speech being used to suppress illegal actions. Shrug...
I'm also quite certain, that you'd call it "extortion" even if every word in the notice were perfectly truthful.
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
It is, however, illegal to infringe on copyrights. If the legal lying helps reduce the illegal infringement, I'm fine with it.
If it does have "hundreds", you wouldn't have had a problem quoting one or two (as slew just did above):
Your honor! The accused is guilty! Just search this web-site for evidence.
That said, slew has posted something above from Leviticus, that may be a good (counter)example to what I said earlier... I'll have to do my own research on that before admitting it.
Nope, sorry, that's not how it works. You make accusation, you provide the citations. Thank you.
It is absolving them. Perhaps, not completely but partially. And that can not stand — however small the part. The below statements are equally false and endorsing of evil:
Yes, this may be a fine public policy. But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
Well, I was raised as an atheist in the USSR... Could you provide citations, please?
If they don't, then they are either hiding it, or are ignorant — possibly, because they can't read the original Koran in Arabic themselves. For the scripture is quite explicit...
No, I don't think, this is due to race or ethnicity — there are plenty of Arab Christians, for example, and they aren't anywhere as crazy as the men being discussed.
Whenever something the victim has said or done is used to excuse — or even merely explain — an attack on him, it is victim-blaming. When his actions/words were perfectly legal — whether it is the revealing clothing, or following a suspicious character on public street, or mocking somebody's religion, or even "not caring" for somebody's dire economic situation — such victim-blaming becomes abhorrent.
Yeah, a famous excuse by Illiberals. Only it is not quite true. Congo, for example, may be the world's poorest country, but Iceland is at the top of the number of crimes per capita.
Citation needed. While we do not (yet) know the background of these criminals, the Tsarnaev brothers were reasonably comfortable. Palestinians in Gaza are much wealthier than Egyptians behind the border. 9/11-attackers were from Saudi Arabia — and although not all residents of that country are rich, all citizens are very well off. Bin Laden was a bona-fide billionaire...
Poverty may or may not increase the number of property crimes, but it does not make one a terrorist, from what I see.
The assholes responsible for the attack being discussed were not desperate. Nor did they do a "desperate thing". Off-topic much?
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.