but maybe worse/faster/whatever) once global climate hit a critical point, things can go wrong very fast, very global, and in a very irrevocable way
"Maybe", "could", and "expected" are the keywords here. A really bad thing might happen with a very low probability. Meanwhile, we are asked to make very certain sacrifices — surrender both money and rights to the State.
No wonder, Statists love it, and scratching a "global warming" alarmist always reveals a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
So are all other laws. You are not beaten up on the way home, nor is your daughter raped, because our morals consider such actions evil, and our laws ban them. You are free to not associate with someone, who you consider an asshole, but you don't get to beat them up (or, as you'd put it, "revoke their privilege to live").
in return for having the work eventually enter the Public Domain
Which contract are you referring to? Who signed it and when?
the legitimate recourse to a creator breaking the social contract is simply to revoke his privilege!
So, Windows is not entering Public Domain as fast as you'd like — and you wish to confiscate it from Microsoft? Or is it the Justin Bieber's music?
The express purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts
Whatever. You didn't create it, whatever it is, somebody else did. If you don't like the terms, under which he is willing to let you use it, then don't use it. Imposing your own terms instead is evil and tyrannical — it is not even the "slippery slope", it is the actual falling off the cliff.
The Jefferson's letter you linked to talks about inventions, and his opinion, that there is no "natural right" to them. I am not sure I agree, but software is not an "invention" (and music even less so) anyway, so that's not the topic here.
Distinction without difference. Falos attempted to ridicule all attempts to use "paper walls" as futile attempts against "the universe"...
If I make a copy of a work, I have taken nothing from the creator.
You have reduced the amount of control, the creator had over the creation. This is why it is commonly called "theft" — even if nothing tangible changes hand.
Yours is a common fallacy, unfortunately, but a fallacy it is.
Examples where creators have attempted to exert control without copying having occurred, where it is unreasonable to give creators said control
It may seem unreasonable to you, but you aren't the creator — and so your opinion does not matter. You can take the offered conditions or reject them — along with the creation itself. The only legitimate recourse for you is to pretend the creation was never created — if the strings attached by the creator to its use really are "unreasonable", they will not sell too many and either go bust or change their conditions. A self-regulating problem...
Distinguishing the limits on copying and other limits makes no difference. Just as I said...
Parody
Yes, some uses are allowed by our very liberal reading of the First Amendment (I wish, we read the Second just as liberally, but I digress). Limiting everything else is fine — as long as I am not legally bound to pay for/use the creation, of course...
Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you buy a "barebone" computer to use with free software? If you hate (on) Microsoft so much, why do you use their software at all? I don't...
just like the *IAA are greedy fucks.
Are they? Well, why do you listen/watch their wares then? Just pretend, they do not exist — go to a theater, read a book...
No, you don't want that — you want to keep enjoying other people's works, while badmouthing them for being "greedy".
For the rest of the audience, ladies and gentlemen, the above post provides exactly the "outrage" I was talking about. Thanks for your time.
The issue isn't *that* we dislike them. It's *why* we dislike them that makes them profiteers.
You got it, my good man! We dislike them, because their software is used for surveillance. We would've disliked them for that reason, if they were giving it away for free.
But since they are making a profit it (presumably, they do), we hate (on) them even more...
Everything to do with war and resource extraction is a dirty business.
Everything, where the payer and the decision-maker are different entities is a dirty business. Fixed that for you... For example, just about anything tax-paid — whether it is road-construction or software-writing — is a dirt-magnet...
If I pay for something, I expect to be able to use it. As I please. Not as its creator pleases.
Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please? As long as they aren't in a position to prevent you from rejecting their entire creation, they ought to be able to attach whatever strings they want. If you don't like the software/movie/song enough to accept the terms, you remain free to act as if it was never written...
I, for example, strongly dislike Microsoft software — and I don't use it. I know a multitude of people, who don't give a damn — and that's fine too. What I don't understand are people like yourself — who "hate on" the creators for this or that, while still using the creations.
The verb profiteer has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
profiteer -- (make an unreasonable profit, as on the sale of difficult to obtain goods)
But we already know, that "profiteering" is bad (heck, to nearly half the country "profit" is bad!), so why not use the word as a dirty term against someone we dislike?
Holding up "I thought of it first" as a paper wall to command the universe. Shout morals if you like, but reality listens closer to logistics.
The paper wall of the property deed works just fine — in a reasonably law-obedient society — to hold squatters outside of one's house. I don't see, why you'd dismiss the "I thought of it first" paper wall as any less practical.
I tend to put more priority on people who lose
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."
Why? If you want to use Software that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it.
This sounds just as — indeed, indistinguishably — logical to me as "If you want to listen to music that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it". Or "If you want to watch a movie that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it."
And yet, the prevailing opinion on/. remains, that creators wishing to control their creations (or sell such control to others) simply shows them to be greedy and their attempts — outrageous.
Any attempt to oppose an idea on the grounds, that it is "too old", must demonstrate, how the time has changed the argument. See also, the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy.
The possible exceptions are arguments over things, which are illogical by their very nature — such as clothing- or hair-styles — the domain, where, I believe, the very notion of "this so yesterdayish" originated.
When Krebs presented the Post with his story about the Russian spammers, rather than run with it, the Post lawyers got in the way and were terrified of being sued for libel by the Russians.
Sparta and Athens were certainly different, but the "soundbite" quoted referred to the military prowess, which is quite apart from the government structure.
Both went through periods of dictatorships/tyranny, but neither was "fascist" as the term is understood today. In fact, whereas Athens had its bouts of one-man tyrannies every so often, Sparta was ruled by an oligarchy up until much later in history (when the rise of Rome made all Greek powers equally immaterial). Sparta's "kings" were merely military commanders with little domestic authority.
Reading the "Peloponnesian War" — written by an Athenian general (exiled) — one can't help, but develop sympathy for Sparta. Athens lost that war, because they sent a major force not against the actual enemy, but to Sicily — so as to expand their empire...
Doubly ironic that most Spartan soundbites come to us because they were recorded by their opponents
You meant to say "admirers", I'm sure...
Then again, totalitarian societies never last long.
Well, Sparta certainly outlasted Athens (as a power). Though Corinth and Thebes — Sparta's allies — both demanded, Athens be destroyed, Sparta did not do that. Athens certainly would have, had they prevailed — if what happened to Scione or Melos, for example, is any guide. It was perfectly normal for your wonderful "opponents of fascist totalitarian society" to destroy the captured city, kill all males, and sell women sold into slavery.
You should spend a few years reading ancient history, before opening your (virtual) mouth on the subject again...
No article about a sitting President of the US is published without the aim of either helping or hurting his image and objectives. If the article puts positive light on him, then it was meant to help him and it is therefor perfectly legitimate for his opponents (like myself) to harp at the failures.
It's akin to saying someone is very skilled and more creative at using toilet paper -- and then bemoan that they're a pretty poor plumber.
He already paid what our society deemed a proper penalty and now is in the clear. Or he should be, shouldn't he?
He should be — and is — clear with the government. (Though even there, should he break the law again, he is likely to be punished more severely.)
The individual people and private companies are still allowed to dislike him, however, and can not — not in a free country — be forced to associate with him.
If the "activity" involves rioting — or inciting thereof — it is, indeed, a felony, no matter, which cause the "activists" claim to be "supporting". That's perfectly normal and, indeed, fitting for a reasonably free country.
Anybody threatening "no peace" should be prosecuted for such incitement and I, for one, would not hire such a thug for the rest of his days — though you are welcome to set up your own hiring policies in your own firm.
Unless, of course, you are afraid of him because you consider him to be a religious nut or you find his skin's colour to be funny.
Certain kinds of discrimination (such as on the basis of religion or race) are, indeed, prohibited in the US — making the country less free.
Why then, not using those same standards for the case of a man that already paid his debt to society for his past crimes?
So as to not to make the country even less free? Seems like a good enough reason...
Until you are prepared to argue, people shall not be allowed to discriminate in deciding, who to marry, you can't really put forth a self-consistent argument against any and all discrimination...
Do you want to sit for eight hours next to someone, who robbed somebody at knifepoint 5 years ago? Do you want such a guy to take care of your elderly (grand)mother? Do you want him to have access to financial (or medical) data of thousands of your customers — until his buddies from prison convince (or blackmail) him to exploit it?
It is not the law that prohibits his hiring. It is that the companies (all of them private) don't want to associate with such people — and in our (still somewhat) free country, freedom of association runs both ways.
This man's judgement clearly failed at some point in the past. He says, he cleaned-up his act — and it may very well be true. But I would not blame people refusing to believe him, nor would I consider such a refusal to be a uniquely American trait. Unless, of course, I were still butt-sore over America's superiority and needed to vent my anger at the misfortune of having been born in the wrong country...
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly have! And it sure seems, the opportunity to destroy KKKapitalism helps sway the aforementioned Statists to the wrong side of the bet.
"Maybe", "could", and "expected" are the keywords here. A really bad thing might happen with a very low probability. Meanwhile, we are asked to make very certain sacrifices — surrender both money and rights to the State.
No wonder, Statists love it, and scratching a "global warming" alarmist always reveals a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
So are all other laws. You are not beaten up on the way home, nor is your daughter raped, because our morals consider such actions evil, and our laws ban them. You are free to not associate with someone, who you consider an asshole, but you don't get to beat them up (or, as you'd put it, "revoke their privilege to live").
Which contract are you referring to? Who signed it and when?
So, Windows is not entering Public Domain as fast as you'd like — and you wish to confiscate it from Microsoft? Or is it the Justin Bieber's music?
Whatever. You didn't create it, whatever it is, somebody else did. If you don't like the terms, under which he is willing to let you use it, then don't use it. Imposing your own terms instead is evil and tyrannical — it is not even the "slippery slope", it is the actual falling off the cliff.
The Jefferson's letter you linked to talks about inventions, and his opinion, that there is no "natural right" to them. I am not sure I agree, but software is not an "invention" (and music even less so) anyway, so that's not the topic here.
Thank you for admitting, the "taking away" has indeed taken place.
Distinction without difference. Falos attempted to ridicule all attempts to use "paper walls" as futile attempts against "the universe"...
You have reduced the amount of control, the creator had over the creation. This is why it is commonly called "theft" — even if nothing tangible changes hand.
Yours is a common fallacy, unfortunately, but a fallacy it is.
It may seem unreasonable to you, but you aren't the creator — and so your opinion does not matter. You can take the offered conditions or reject them — along with the creation itself. The only legitimate recourse for you is to pretend the creation was never created — if the strings attached by the creator to its use really are "unreasonable", they will not sell too many and either go bust or change their conditions. A self-regulating problem...
Distinguishing the limits on copying and other limits makes no difference. Just as I said...
Yes, some uses are allowed by our very liberal reading of the First Amendment (I wish, we read the Second just as liberally, but I digress). Limiting everything else is fine — as long as I am not legally bound to pay for/use the creation, of course...
Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you buy a "barebone" computer to use with free software? If you hate (on) Microsoft so much, why do you use their software at all? I don't...
Are they? Well, why do you listen/watch their wares then? Just pretend, they do not exist — go to a theater, read a book...
No, you don't want that — you want to keep enjoying other people's works, while badmouthing them for being "greedy".
For the rest of the audience, ladies and gentlemen, the above post provides exactly the "outrage" I was talking about. Thanks for your time.
You got it, my good man! We dislike them, because their software is used for surveillance. We would've disliked them for that reason, if they were giving it away for free.
But since they are making a profit it (presumably, they do), we hate (on) them even more...
Everything, where the payer and the decision-maker are different entities is a dirty business. Fixed that for you... For example, just about anything tax-paid — whether it is road-construction or software-writing — is a dirt-magnet...
No, you can not.
Nope
And, before you ask, it is not "terrorism" either...
You are not writing a textbook (which your students will be compelled to buy) here, professor.
Do put your arguments forth yourself, or get out. Put up or shut up, so to speak.
Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please? As long as they aren't in a position to prevent you from rejecting their entire creation, they ought to be able to attach whatever strings they want. If you don't like the software/movie/song enough to accept the terms, you remain free to act as if it was never written...
I, for example, strongly dislike Microsoft software — and I don't use it. I know a multitude of people, who don't give a damn — and that's fine too. What I don't understand are people like yourself — who "hate on" the creators for this or that, while still using the creations.
But we already know, that "profiteering" is bad (heck, to nearly half the country "profit" is bad!), so why not use the word as a dirty term against someone we dislike?
The paper wall of the property deed works just fine — in a reasonably law-obedient society — to hold squatters outside of one's house. I don't see, why you'd dismiss the "I thought of it first" paper wall as any less practical.
Also:
Distinction without difference. Thanks for playing.
This sounds just as — indeed, indistinguishably — logical to me as "If you want to listen to music that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it". Or "If you want to watch a movie that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it."
And yet, the prevailing opinion on /. remains, that creators wishing to control their creations (or sell such control to others) simply shows them to be greedy and their attempts — outrageous.
Any attempt to oppose an idea on the grounds, that it is "too old", must demonstrate, how the time has changed the argument. See also, the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy.
The possible exceptions are arguments over things, which are illogical by their very nature — such as clothing- or hair-styles — the domain, where, I believe, the very notion of "this so yesterdayish" originated.
Let's have some outrage over creators seeking to, gasp, control their creations — and be paid for their use.
Sure. The cost of a vice-Presidential candidate's wardrobe is a much safer thing to report...
Sparta and Athens were certainly different, but the "soundbite" quoted referred to the military prowess, which is quite apart from the government structure.
Both went through periods of dictatorships/tyranny, but neither was "fascist" as the term is understood today. In fact, whereas Athens had its bouts of one-man tyrannies every so often, Sparta was ruled by an oligarchy up until much later in history (when the rise of Rome made all Greek powers equally immaterial). Sparta's "kings" were merely military commanders with little domestic authority.
Reading the "Peloponnesian War" — written by an Athenian general (exiled) — one can't help, but develop sympathy for Sparta. Athens lost that war, because they sent a major force not against the actual enemy, but to Sicily — so as to expand their empire...
You meant to say "admirers", I'm sure...
Well, Sparta certainly outlasted Athens (as a power). Though Corinth and Thebes — Sparta's allies — both demanded, Athens be destroyed, Sparta did not do that. Athens certainly would have, had they prevailed — if what happened to Scione or Melos, for example, is any guide. It was perfectly normal for your wonderful "opponents of fascist totalitarian society" to destroy the captured city, kill all males, and sell women sold into slavery.
You should spend a few years reading ancient history, before opening your (virtual) mouth on the subject again...
Ah! So you've identified one more thought-crime, that you'd like American government to prosecute...
As they say, Statists gonna state.
Please, don't hate...
No article about a sitting President of the US is published without the aim of either helping or hurting his image and objectives. If the article puts positive light on him, then it was meant to help him and it is therefor perfectly legitimate for his opponents (like myself) to harp at the failures.
That may be a valid analogy, but you should've used it years ago (2008) — when the slickness of Obama's "use of social media" was lauded (and perceived!) as the indicator of his technological savvy — something for the GOP to "catch-up" on. OMG, he uses Blackberry!..
He should be — and is — clear with the government. (Though even there, should he break the law again, he is likely to be punished more severely.)
The individual people and private companies are still allowed to dislike him, however, and can not — not in a free country — be forced to associate with him.
If the "activity" involves rioting — or inciting thereof — it is, indeed, a felony, no matter, which cause the "activists" claim to be "supporting". That's perfectly normal and, indeed, fitting for a reasonably free country.
Anybody threatening "no peace" should be prosecuted for such incitement and I, for one, would not hire such a thug for the rest of his days — though you are welcome to set up your own hiring policies in your own firm.
There aren't any in the US. Please, don't hate.
Certain kinds of discrimination (such as on the basis of religion or race) are, indeed, prohibited in the US — making the country less free.
So as to not to make the country even less free? Seems like a good enough reason...
Until you are prepared to argue, people shall not be allowed to discriminate in deciding, who to marry, you can't really put forth a self-consistent argument against any and all discrimination...
Do you want to sit for eight hours next to someone, who robbed somebody at knifepoint 5 years ago? Do you want such a guy to take care of your elderly (grand)mother? Do you want him to have access to financial (or medical) data of thousands of your customers — until his buddies from prison convince (or blackmail) him to exploit it?
It is not the law that prohibits his hiring. It is that the companies (all of them private) don't want to associate with such people — and in our (still somewhat) free country, freedom of association runs both ways.
This man's judgement clearly failed at some point in the past. He says, he cleaned-up his act — and it may very well be true. But I would not blame people refusing to believe him, nor would I consider such a refusal to be a uniquely American trait. Unless, of course, I were still butt-sore over America's superiority and needed to vent my anger at the misfortune of having been born in the wrong country...