Or, more precisely, that's how it works out when applied to the real world. Everyone is paranoia about copyright infringement and no one wants to be held responsible (even if the content isn't permanently deleted).
This is the problem with DMCA take downs. They force websites to take down the material even if it isn't certain that it is infringing. Websites don't have the resources to police the content, so sometimes they even have to resort to faulty automated systems (Youtube) that generate false-positives, or (even worse) give copyright holders the power to remove content (which will, again, be abused).
All this does is hurt the little guy. It's guilty until proven innocent, and if you don't have the resources to fight them, you're doomed.
A human could murder someone for no reason. Therefore, we need to punish everyone before that happens! Let's just throw everyone in prison! That'll show them!
Straw man? I never said they claimed that. I was just making a comparison. Oftentimes I've noticed people use the same kinds of arguments to try to push for censorship of violent video games.
But, to address your 'point', I'd be all for banning advertising of those evil, violent video games.
I don't see why. There's no real-world studies that I know of that accurately conclude that video games cause violence or even do anything permanently harmful to anyone whilst explaining why violent crime rates went down (even among youth).
Unless that isn't your reason.
Also, anyone who sticks up for the poor, misunderstood advertisers can seriously go fuck themselves.
I'm sorry, but I'm 100% against censorship even if I don't like the people (I don't) being censored.
My point is this: If someone doesn't give me all of their money for no reason (a loss of potential gain), I don't treat that as the same kind of situation as when someone steals my money from me. In one situation, I merely lost the potential to gain something (certainly, it would be nice if I could've gained, but I don't think I really lost anything here, nor do I feel that I did), while in the other, I actually lost something I already had. Call me "intellectually dishonest" all you please; you're probably not going to get me to change my mind if you still don't agree with me.
Wrong, they're using the product of the artists investments in time, labour and necessary equipment
...Which I believe doesn't affect them in any way because the artist has already used their time and money to develop the product. They did that of their own volition, I might add. Even if it's copied a million times after that, the artist wouldn't lose anything except perhaps potential sales.
None of the artist's resources are being used by the copyright infringers. The artist already lost the resources making the product (nothing to do with the copyright infringer), so the copyright infringer can't use those again.
Trying to separate the product from the investment is intellectually dishonest
What does that even mean? I disagree with you, therefore I'm intellectually dishonest? A seemingly common theme among people who disagree with one another: the opposition is almost always "intellectually dishonest." Funny, isn't it?
The investment cannot be lost again since it has already been lost. Certainly, the copyright infringers aren't helping the artist out, and perhaps they should according to some people, but comparing this situation to copyright infringement is, I believe, an invalid comparison.
because in either case the former can't exist without the latter.
Okay. In one example, someone is paying for their own internet connection. No harm done by using the internet connection.
In the other example, they're not paying for the internet connection. People say they're "stealing" bandwidth. Not only are they not helping recoup the costs of production, they're (according to some) actually harming the person.
Copyright infringers have no affiliation with the artists whatsoever. They aren't using their resources in any way. The copyright infringers generally use their own internet connections to download the material.
Is it all right with you if I get you to install a trojan or something and make a copy of your PERSONAL data, then?
Assuming you can get me to install the trojan, I'd say no harm would be done. I'd prefer it didn't happen since I value privacy, but I'd say no harm would be done.
Unless you then used the information to actually steal from me. That's a very real possibility (Why else would someone wan that information?). That's why people aren't willing to give up such information, and that's why it's a false analogy. Copying a movie, for instance, does not give someone the ability to clear out your (or the artist's) bank account (which contains money that you already have).
If all we had to be afraid of was people copying the information and then doing nothing that would affect us with it (as is the case with copyright infringement), then there wouldn't be too much to fear (outside of a loss of privacy).
The community has made a bogus definition in order to support its pirating habits. It's a simple as that.
Then how do you say that you lost the potential for a customer to buy something from you because they didn't like your company's practices? "Should" never come into a situation such as that (at least not for me).
1) Whether they should have paid for it or not is subjective. 2) It's also irrelevant. It's only a lost sale if they would have bought it otherwise (pretty hard to prove).
if anyone believes that, then they should argue that copyright should never have existed in the first place and corporations should've always been allowed to print all the books they want and sell all the software they want and sell all the movies they can - because it only means a "potential" loss for the creators and corporations should be allowed to pocket all the money for themselves
By not paying, and essentially being an unknown factor to the business providing the R&D investment, you are lowering the return on investment for every other researcher.
You're not the one taking their money. They use it up all on their own.
First of all, the great majority have nothing to hide and should not fear the cameras.
Right. Same thing that the government tries to say about the Patriot Act, the TSA, and warrantless wiretapping...
Only a small minority of the population is composed of criminals. Yet we feel the need to pass rights-violating anti-terrorism legislation, "for the children laws," and put cameras everywhere, all to satisfy people's paranoia.
It's a public place, yes, but you didn't used to have the government watching you and recording your every move in every public place you went, did you? A human memory is nothing compared to a camera's, and humans can't be everywhere at once like they can. It makes me feel unsettled, and quite simply, afraid of the government itself, even if I'm not doing anything illegal. They become this entity that watches over everyone (supposedly for their own "benefit") that have no watchers of their own. There are so many laws that you could break, and if they want to, they could watch for the slightest infraction.
So sorry. Catching a few criminals (who will just find a work around, or they'll continue like always) isn't important enough to me to justify this government spying on public areas. As I said, technically there wasn't much privacy in these public places, but it used to be that if a place was empty, you'd know no one was watching and recording you. I rarely trust the government with something, and I definitely don't trust them with these spying capabilities.
So, yeah, break out your "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic anytime, but it's not going to convince me.
When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
I really don't think I can keep my friends/relatives from knowing my name...
And if some of your information is already on the internet (address, etc), someone could use that name to find out even more.
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search.
Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. And indeed, with people accepting the Patriot Act (in the US) and adopting the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, I think things will only get worse.
Some places are installing cameras everywhere in public places due to a criminal paranoia. Even if you don't technically have privacy in most public places, the cameras just make this even worse. They're not comparable at all to normal humans spotting you because these cameras are everywhere at once and can (and do) record everything they see (unlike a human's faulty memory, the cameras won't forget anything).
Then there's the whole problem of people willingly giving up all of their information to websites like Facebook. I personally have no doubt that there will come a time when privacy violations and spying are seen as normal and acceptable. In fact, that might already be largely true.
in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it
What does that even mean? We can kick anyone out of the public lands as long as most people don't want them there (because of some arbitrary, imaginary value people get out of the land)?
There might be laws regarding doing certain things on supposedly "public" lands, but I take issue with this particular sentence.
I'm sure it's true that at least some of the Occupyers weren't completely innocent, but the same applies to the police. And frankly, I expect far more restraint out of them than I do out of the (mostly) peaceful protesters.
What? If the software is bad (which is subjective of course), whether or not it is free will not change that. The quality of the software does not change, and neither does the validity of your criticism. I'd say it's arrogant to suggest otherwise. I think people need to stop being babies about criticism.
As always, commercial or not, they don't have to listen to your criticism. But then again, when did I ever say that they did?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, more precisely, that's how it works out when applied to the real world. Everyone is paranoia about copyright infringement and no one wants to be held responsible (even if the content isn't permanently deleted).
This is the problem with DMCA take downs. They force websites to take down the material even if it isn't certain that it is infringing. Websites don't have the resources to police the content, so sometimes they even have to resort to faulty automated systems (Youtube) that generate false-positives, or (even worse) give copyright holders the power to remove content (which will, again, be abused).
All this does is hurt the little guy. It's guilty until proven innocent, and if you don't have the resources to fight them, you're doomed.
A human could murder someone for no reason. Therefore, we need to punish everyone before that happens! Let's just throw everyone in prison! That'll show them!
Disingenuous, offtopic strawman.
Straw man? I never said they claimed that. I was just making a comparison. Oftentimes I've noticed people use the same kinds of arguments to try to push for censorship of violent video games.
But, to address your 'point', I'd be all for banning advertising of those evil, violent video games.
I don't see why. There's no real-world studies that I know of that accurately conclude that video games cause violence or even do anything permanently harmful to anyone whilst explaining why violent crime rates went down (even among youth).
Unless that isn't your reason.
Also, anyone who sticks up for the poor, misunderstood advertisers can seriously go fuck themselves.
I'm sorry, but I'm 100% against censorship even if I don't like the people (I don't) being censored.
If it's been 30 years[...]
Fifteen is the maximum number of years that I would agree to should copyright exist at all.
My point is this: If someone doesn't give me all of their money for no reason (a loss of potential gain), I don't treat that as the same kind of situation as when someone steals my money from me. In one situation, I merely lost the potential to gain something (certainly, it would be nice if I could've gained, but I don't think I really lost anything here, nor do I feel that I did), while in the other, I actually lost something I already had. Call me "intellectually dishonest" all you please; you're probably not going to get me to change my mind if you still don't agree with me.
Wrong, they're using the product of the artists investments in time, labour and necessary equipment
...Which I believe doesn't affect them in any way because the artist has already used their time and money to develop the product. They did that of their own volition, I might add. Even if it's copied a million times after that, the artist wouldn't lose anything except perhaps potential sales.
None of the artist's resources are being used by the copyright infringers. The artist already lost the resources making the product (nothing to do with the copyright infringer), so the copyright infringer can't use those again.
Trying to separate the product from the investment is intellectually dishonest
What does that even mean? I disagree with you, therefore I'm intellectually dishonest? A seemingly common theme among people who disagree with one another: the opposition is almost always "intellectually dishonest." Funny, isn't it?
The investment cannot be lost again since it has already been lost. Certainly, the copyright infringers aren't helping the artist out, and perhaps they should according to some people, but comparing this situation to copyright infringement is, I believe, an invalid comparison.
because in either case the former can't exist without the latter.
And?
Okay. In one example, someone is paying for their own internet connection. No harm done by using the internet connection.
In the other example, they're not paying for the internet connection. People say they're "stealing" bandwidth. Not only are they not helping recoup the costs of production, they're (according to some) actually harming the person.
Copyright infringers have no affiliation with the artists whatsoever. They aren't using their resources in any way. The copyright infringers generally use their own internet connections to download the material.
Is it all right with you if I get you to install a trojan or something and make a copy of your PERSONAL data, then?
Assuming you can get me to install the trojan, I'd say no harm would be done. I'd prefer it didn't happen since I value privacy, but I'd say no harm would be done.
Unless you then used the information to actually steal from me. That's a very real possibility (Why else would someone wan that information?). That's why people aren't willing to give up such information, and that's why it's a false analogy. Copying a movie, for instance, does not give someone the ability to clear out your (or the artist's) bank account (which contains money that you already have).
If all we had to be afraid of was people copying the information and then doing nothing that would affect us with it (as is the case with copyright infringement), then there wouldn't be too much to fear (outside of a loss of privacy).
The community has made a bogus definition in order to support its pirating habits. It's a simple as that.
Then how do you say that you lost the potential for a customer to buy something from you because they didn't like your company's practices? "Should" never come into a situation such as that (at least not for me).
1) Whether they should have paid for it or not is subjective.
2) It's also irrelevant. It's only a lost sale if they would have bought it otherwise (pretty hard to prove).
We could say that piracy halved the sales
You could, but it would be a mere assumption.
And the only "loss" is a potential one.
if anyone believes that, then they should argue that copyright should never have existed in the first place and corporations should've always been allowed to print all the books they want and sell all the software they want and sell all the movies they can - because it only means a "potential" loss for the creators and corporations should be allowed to pocket all the money for themselves
Yes. I want copyright gone completely.
By not paying, and essentially being an unknown factor to the business providing the R&D investment, you are lowering the return on investment for every other researcher.
You're not the one taking their money. They use it up all on their own.
Getting a free ride on the bus and not paying for it is actually an apt analogy.
Only if you take someone's else's seat.
Which really has nothing to do with copyright infringement since copyright infringers have nothing to do with the production.
First of all, the great majority have nothing to hide and should not fear the cameras.
Right. Same thing that the government tries to say about the Patriot Act, the TSA, and warrantless wiretapping...
Only a small minority of the population is composed of criminals. Yet we feel the need to pass rights-violating anti-terrorism legislation, "for the children laws," and put cameras everywhere, all to satisfy people's paranoia.
It's a public place, yes, but you didn't used to have the government watching you and recording your every move in every public place you went, did you? A human memory is nothing compared to a camera's, and humans can't be everywhere at once like they can. It makes me feel unsettled, and quite simply, afraid of the government itself, even if I'm not doing anything illegal. They become this entity that watches over everyone (supposedly for their own "benefit") that have no watchers of their own. There are so many laws that you could break, and if they want to, they could watch for the slightest infraction.
So sorry. Catching a few criminals (who will just find a work around, or they'll continue like always) isn't important enough to me to justify this government spying on public areas. As I said, technically there wasn't much privacy in these public places, but it used to be that if a place was empty, you'd know no one was watching and recording you. I rarely trust the government with something, and I definitely don't trust them with these spying capabilities.
So, yeah, break out your "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic anytime, but it's not going to convince me.
When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
I really don't think I can keep my friends/relatives from knowing my name...
And if some of your information is already on the internet (address, etc), someone could use that name to find out even more.
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search.
Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. And indeed, with people accepting the Patriot Act (in the US) and adopting the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, I think things will only get worse.
Some places are installing cameras everywhere in public places due to a criminal paranoia. Even if you don't technically have privacy in most public places, the cameras just make this even worse. They're not comparable at all to normal humans spotting you because these cameras are everywhere at once and can (and do) record everything they see (unlike a human's faulty memory, the cameras won't forget anything).
Then there's the whole problem of people willingly giving up all of their information to websites like Facebook. I personally have no doubt that there will come a time when privacy violations and spying are seen as normal and acceptable. In fact, that might already be largely true.
If only we'd have used Gamemaker...
I think this is what happens when you don't use Gamemaker.
in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it
What does that even mean? We can kick anyone out of the public lands as long as most people don't want them there (because of some arbitrary, imaginary value people get out of the land)?
There might be laws regarding doing certain things on supposedly "public" lands, but I take issue with this particular sentence.
I'm sure it's true that at least some of the Occupyers weren't completely innocent, but the same applies to the police. And frankly, I expect far more restraint out of them than I do out of the (mostly) peaceful protesters.
Exactly. Cops are perfect beings, unlike normal humans. They've never done anything wrong. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
What? If the software is bad (which is subjective of course), whether or not it is free will not change that. The quality of the software does not change, and neither does the validity of your criticism. I'd say it's arrogant to suggest otherwise. I think people need to stop being babies about criticism.
As always, commercial or not, they don't have to listen to your criticism. But then again, when did I ever say that they did?