If they want to make something into law, shouldn't they need to prove whatever they're stating first? Instead, they just make things illegal under the guise of protecting children without any thought going into the process.
And I think things should never be banned because of the actions of a few.
Because it would also render regular child pornography as legal.
I'm not seeing how that would render his argument invalid. That might be an uncomfortable situation for you, but that doesn't make his argument invalid.
For all you know, that might be his goal. It's all subjective.
Are you a pedophile supporter?
Guilt by association is a wonderful thing, and so is this mentality. "Children are involved. This makes your arguments invalid!" But I am a supporter of people's rights, no matter who they may be. The "think of the children" arguments remain unconvincing to me.
Unless you're just parodying people who say such things. But I have seen people who really do have such a mentality.
It doesn't have to be strictly passive, because IT HAS LEFT YOUR CAR.
It may have left their car, but that doesn't mean they should be able to stop you and order the dog to search around so they can try to punish people for victimless crimes.
So, stop being an idiot for two seconds, and realize that cops DO NOT HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE A WARRANT.
That's the way things work right now, yes. Right now.
Yes, how dare they arrest someone for a victimless crime!
Seriously. It takes some nerve to waste society's time, money, and resources arresting people for victimless crimes and then potentially harming someone greatly.
That's not an apples to apples comparison you're making there. they fact someone didn't give you all their money has no relevance to someone didn't give you the amount of money you asked for a product you produced.
That point wasn't about copyright infringement. It was about loss of potential gain. In both situations, the person could have gained. But they didn't.
Yes I am 100% right and you're 100% wrong. In this case.
Seems like arrogance to me. Well, all you said was that it was wrong. I haven't seen you actually prove that it is wrong.
The fact is that in order for society to function certain things need to happen.
You mentioned that it was wrong, and then mentioned society as if it was relevant. What society believes is wrong isn't necessarily wrong.
But if all you meant was that you think society needs certain rules to function, then I see no issue with that.
While wrong does not necessarily equate to illegal. It's usually in the mix.
The law needn't be brought up. If you think it's wrong, then explain why. Saying it's illegal does nothing.
So then you agree that there is something called right and wrong and at some level an absolute moral.
No, I don't. I'm a moral relativist. I just wondered how you went from, "you're a copyright infringer" to, "you have the potential to be a murderer/are a murderer."
So far I can see you believe that killing and theft are both absolutely immoral.
I said that I personally think that theft is wrong, not that it is objectively wrong.
Yet you say you are not anti-copyright.
Again, no. You seem to be misinterpreting me. I asked how you could come to the conclusion that I am anti-copyright based on my first reply to you alone. I indicated no such thing in that comment.
Ah a moral relativist, that still clings to moral principals that protect him
I have a personal moral code. What's your point?
And that sounds like a hasty generalization.
but damn all others whom he doesn't care to protect.
Well, if that's what I decided my moral code is, then I guess that's how it would be.
But how are people who believe in absolute morals any difference? Since they have no actual evidence (that I know of) of absolute morality, they're essentially saying, "Absolute morals exist because I said so. X is absolutely wrong because I said so." Not only do they seemingly have no evidence (just like me) to back up their beliefs, they also seemingly have no idea how to tell what is absolutely right or wrong (assuming absolute morality does exist).
It's just as easy for someone who believes in absolute morals to conveniently believe that things that benefit them are morally "correct" as it is for a moral relativist to believe the same.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth.
Looks to me like you stated an opinion. Still, I don't think it should be modded down.
1) You didn't create that music or movie. Therefore it's not yours to give away free to the whole world.
You're stating what the current laws say. To someone who thinks current laws should change, the current laws are quite irrelevant.
Nothing here proves that it's absolutely wrong.
YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
Then why bring it up? One involves theft in the traditional sense.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
You wasted their time. Not theft, but I'd say that's at least harm. Indeed it's not "apples to apples" because, as far as I know, copyright infringers don't waste anyone's (but their own) time.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold.
How do you define "too little"? That's subjective.
For this point, in order to conclude that it's wrong, you'd seemingly have to conclude that causing a loss of potential profit for someone else is wrong. I don't necessarily believe this is true. I lose the opportunity to gain all the time (someone didn't give me all of their money even though they could have), but I would never say I was harmed or that it is theft.
As for whether it's wrong, I believe that's subjective.
4) The fact that you can't see what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you and making copies
Well, if something was taken, then I personally think it's wrong. As in, if the person who made the copies took it. But only wrong on their part.
which the law says you cannot do
I'd refrain from appealing to the law, honestly.
Just because you're a bigoted fool
How so? That sounds subjective. And it's also kind of ironic to me considering that you seem to be saying that I'm absolutely wrong and you're 100% right.
It has to do with the law
I hope you're not using the appeal to law fallacy here. Why even bother bringing up the law?
with society
I also hope this isn't an appeal to popularity.
and with the simple morality that transcends religion to the benefit of society as a whole.
What "simple morality"? I've seen no evidence of absolute morals.
to protect us from fools like you
Now, where in that specific post did I say that I was anti-copyright? Do you just assume that anyone who takes issue with anything in your comments is automatically part of the opposition?
The real issue I had was with your use of the word "wrong." You provided no evidence to back up the fact that it was wrong, and then just assumed that everyone agrees with you in their minds whether they say so or not (the same logic can be used against you).
Are you saying that everyone agrees with you? Were you? Do you truly believe that?
who would be perfectly willing to go out and kill people simply because they could do it.
What? How did you even reach this conclusion? How did you go from, "you're anti-copyright" to "you're a cold-blooded murderer"?
Slashdot Mirror
And that's an awful argument.
If they want to make something into law, shouldn't they need to prove whatever they're stating first? Instead, they just make things illegal under the guise of protecting children without any thought going into the process.
And I think things should never be banned because of the actions of a few.
Because it would also render regular child pornography as legal.
I'm not seeing how that would render his argument invalid. That might be an uncomfortable situation for you, but that doesn't make his argument invalid.
For all you know, that might be his goal. It's all subjective.
Are you a pedophile supporter?
Guilt by association is a wonderful thing, and so is this mentality. "Children are involved. This makes your arguments invalid!" But I am a supporter of people's rights, no matter who they may be. The "think of the children" arguments remain unconvincing to me.
Unless you're just parodying people who say such things. But I have seen people who really do have such a mentality.
They're not stopping you to let the dog search around your car, they're stopping you to ask you a few questions, etc.
And I don't think that should happen in the first place.
It better Gamemaker as such never before.
Better that people like Al Capone run free than innocent people be punished.
A cop's ability to easily lie about what the dog's signal is is not the same thing as someone hearing a scream.
Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie.
No, no. The cops are the ones who lie. And ordinary citizens rarely have a chance at recourse.
And victimless crimes are pure idiocy, anyway.
therefore your argument is invalid
Non sequitur. Why would his argument be invalid because of that?
but it's so difficult to disprove
It's on them to prove it.
Not only that, but I don't think we should never ban something just because a few people could abuse it.
And video games make you into a murderer!
So basically, they want to ban something because of the actions of a few, and without any evidence to support their ridiculous claims...
Might as well ban everything in existence.
Or, in this case, think of the imaginary children!
It doesn't have to be strictly passive, because IT HAS LEFT YOUR CAR.
It may have left their car, but that doesn't mean they should be able to stop you and order the dog to search around so they can try to punish people for victimless crimes.
So, stop being an idiot for two seconds, and realize that cops DO NOT HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE A WARRANT.
That's the way things work right now, yes. Right now.
It's part of the probable cause picture.
I think it's ridiculous that such a thing is even considered probable cause in the first place.
Just like when you tell a cop that you heard someone next door screaming for help.
I don't think that's analogous to nearly unfalsifiable drug dog signals.
Exactly why we need amendments to fix these loopholes.
According to some authority figures, maybe, but the 4th amendment says no such thing.
Yes, how dare they arrest someone for a victimless crime!
Seriously. It takes some nerve to waste society's time, money, and resources arresting people for victimless crimes and then potentially harming someone greatly.
It also seems completely pointless that we're wasting our time arresting people for victimless crimes.
That's true. I meant works that cost millions to produce, really.
I'm going to trick you into using Gamemaker one of these days...
Hopefully Gamemaker. If they are true professionals, they'd be using Gamemaker to accomplish all of their tasks.
Because you don't even understand life itself! Life itself is completely unknown to one such as you.
Wow! There are dark rumors about you circulating all over the grapevine. They were started by... Komen Bryce himself!
The rumor's text? "Anonymous Coward is misign a few gigabit on his puter... bai2u... >_>"
I know, I know. Your very soul has been shattered. You are a mere shell of what you once were. You're nothing. You can just turn to dust and die now!
That's not an apples to apples comparison you're making there. they fact someone didn't give you all their money has no relevance to someone didn't give you the amount of money you asked for a product you produced.
That point wasn't about copyright infringement. It was about loss of potential gain. In both situations, the person could have gained. But they didn't.
Yes I am 100% right and you're 100% wrong. In this case.
Seems like arrogance to me. Well, all you said was that it was wrong. I haven't seen you actually prove that it is wrong.
The fact is that in order for society to function certain things need to happen.
You mentioned that it was wrong, and then mentioned society as if it was relevant. What society believes is wrong isn't necessarily wrong.
But if all you meant was that you think society needs certain rules to function, then I see no issue with that.
While wrong does not necessarily equate to illegal. It's usually in the mix.
The law needn't be brought up. If you think it's wrong, then explain why. Saying it's illegal does nothing.
So then you agree that there is something called right and wrong and at some level an absolute moral.
No, I don't. I'm a moral relativist. I just wondered how you went from, "you're a copyright infringer" to, "you have the potential to be a murderer/are a murderer."
So far I can see you believe that killing and theft are both absolutely immoral.
I said that I personally think that theft is wrong, not that it is objectively wrong.
Yet you say you are not anti-copyright.
Again, no. You seem to be misinterpreting me. I asked how you could come to the conclusion that I am anti-copyright based on my first reply to you alone. I indicated no such thing in that comment.
I only spoke to you as a moral relativist.
You say the law is not applicable to copyright
What?
Why aren't tricked into use Gamemaker.
Sounds like this creature... should have used Gamemaker!
Ah a moral relativist, that still clings to moral principals that protect him
I have a personal moral code. What's your point?
And that sounds like a hasty generalization.
but damn all others whom he doesn't care to protect.
Well, if that's what I decided my moral code is, then I guess that's how it would be.
But how are people who believe in absolute morals any difference? Since they have no actual evidence (that I know of) of absolute morality, they're essentially saying, "Absolute morals exist because I said so. X is absolutely wrong because I said so." Not only do they seemingly have no evidence (just like me) to back up their beliefs, they also seemingly have no idea how to tell what is absolutely right or wrong (assuming absolute morality does exist).
It's just as easy for someone who believes in absolute morals to conveniently believe that things that benefit them are morally "correct" as it is for a moral relativist to believe the same.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth.
Looks to me like you stated an opinion. Still, I don't think it should be modded down.
1) You didn't create that music or movie. Therefore it's not yours to give away free to the whole world.
You're stating what the current laws say. To someone who thinks current laws should change, the current laws are quite irrelevant.
Nothing here proves that it's absolutely wrong.
YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
Then why bring it up? One involves theft in the traditional sense.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
You wasted their time. Not theft, but I'd say that's at least harm. Indeed it's not "apples to apples" because, as far as I know, copyright infringers don't waste anyone's (but their own) time.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold.
How do you define "too little"? That's subjective.
For this point, in order to conclude that it's wrong, you'd seemingly have to conclude that causing a loss of potential profit for someone else is wrong. I don't necessarily believe this is true. I lose the opportunity to gain all the time (someone didn't give me all of their money even though they could have), but I would never say I was harmed or that it is theft.
As for whether it's wrong, I believe that's subjective.
4) The fact that you can't see what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you and making copies
Well, if something was taken, then I personally think it's wrong. As in, if the person who made the copies took it. But only wrong on their part.
which the law says you cannot do
I'd refrain from appealing to the law, honestly.
Just because you're a bigoted fool
How so? That sounds subjective. And it's also kind of ironic to me considering that you seem to be saying that I'm absolutely wrong and you're 100% right.
It has to do with the law
I hope you're not using the appeal to law fallacy here. Why even bother bringing up the law?
with society
I also hope this isn't an appeal to popularity.
and with the simple morality that transcends religion to the benefit of society as a whole.
What "simple morality"? I've seen no evidence of absolute morals.
to protect us from fools like you
Now, where in that specific post did I say that I was anti-copyright? Do you just assume that anyone who takes issue with anything in your comments is automatically part of the opposition?
The real issue I had was with your use of the word "wrong." You provided no evidence to back up the fact that it was wrong, and then just assumed that everyone agrees with you in their minds whether they say so or not (the same logic can be used against you).
Are you saying that everyone agrees with you? Were you? Do you truly believe that?
who would be perfectly willing to go out and kill people simply because they could do it.
What? How did you even reach this conclusion? How did you go from, "you're anti-copyright" to "you're a cold-blooded murderer"?