But here's the thing: those books were digital. As such, it isn't as if their supply was low.
If anyone should be punished, I think it should be seller who sold the books, not the customers who bought them. I believe those customers should've been allowed to keep the books.
There is absolutely zero point in removing the books from the actual customers. That just punishes them (and since the books can be infinite in number, it's quite pointless) rather than the one that actually sold them.
And? Books the customers thought were theirs, copies, were suddenly taken away. And for what reason? There was no shortage of supply there. Why take away the copies belonging to the customers?
I think I see a problem here. It seems to be an example of wasted votes syndrome. You and people like you are hurting your own boycotts. "Well, no one else will stop, so I'll pirate it anyway." Suddenly, you have one more pirate. And then other people who feel the same way do the same thing.
But definitely don't buy the garbage. I would rather people pirate it than buy it.
Stop kidding yourself that people are making up piracy as some sort of "scare".
Whether what you said is true or not, they are. I'm quite sick of people treating piracy as if it's some sort of national security emergency (rushing draconian bills through left and right). I'm quite sick of people who think the existence of piracy justifies harming all of their customers with DRM.
I consider piracy a continuation of the welfare entitlement
No entitlement is necessary. "It was there, I wanted it, so I downloaded it for free. If it wasn't there, I would get nothing." In that scenario, you're not demanding anything of anyone.
No one said that there is a "need" to play the games. However, the games are available for free, and it is easy to get them. Some people have no problems doing just that.
I suspect they don't see it as a "need," but a way to get more entertainment for free.
This way you resolve the moral dilemma of taking software without paying for it.
Only true if you believe there was such a moral dilemma in the first place.
But the disadvantages to this approach is that you're still supporting companies who use DRM that screw over their customers. And their DRM could get much worse.
Either I'm confused as to what you're trying to say, something else is going on, or you're not explaining yourself well enough. In any case, I don't think such vague comments are helping here.
You said "indeed." When has the fact that you would believe something else if you were in a different situation ever proved anyone's conclusion wrong?
Uh... what? I even said that I didn't believe it. I didn't shift the burden of proof on anyone. I just stated what I believe is obvious: you can't be sure it didn't happen. While that may apply to all sorts of things, that does not mean it's an invalid observation. Especially for something like this. People make mistakes all the time. Authority figures are no different.
To elaborate: what do we "need" these laws for? I guess that's how I should've phrased it. If someone were to take into account the consequences of not having these laws, and still disagreed with their existence, then I don't see how they could possibly be objectively incorrect.
Really? So if I were to believe that 1 + 1 = 3 if I were in a different situation than I am now, that would mean that my belief that 1 + 1 = 2 is false because I'd believe differently if I were in a different situation?
A passer-by might not see the need for that. "Heck, it's a well, he has water." But there is still the need regardless of his opinion.
Except in that case, people really do need water to live. I'm talking about "need" as in "some sort of magical entity decided that we need these laws." As I said, this is a subjective matter. Whether people are wrong for disagreeing/agreeing with these laws is subjective.
You're less likely to understand the need for laws to combat discrimination against minorities if you are not affected by such discrimination.
I think what you mean is, "You're more likely to hold a different opinion."
There is no objective "need" for these laws. It all comes down to opinion. And someone's isn't invalid just because they aren't in the same situation as another person.
That would simply invalidate all of his arguments. After all, if anyone would believe differently if they were in a different situation, all of their current beliefs are completely invalid.
He admitted it's hearsay. There's no difference between hearsay and "there's absolutely no indication that this thing or anything like it ever really happened."
That's not what I said. I said: "Wait... how can you be sure that it didn't happen when you don't know anything about the poster, his friend, or the friend of his friend?"
How can they be absolutely sure that it didn't happen? Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Saying, "I don't believe it happened." is quite different than saying, "It didn't happen."
When you add to that the fact that punching someone who is mugging you isn't a crime in any country, the bullshit-o-meter goes well into the red.
Well, I don't know the laws of every country in the world, so I wouldn't know. I don't believe it happened, but there is always the possibility of screw ups. But then, wouldn't they make a big deal out of it if it did happen?
I meant exactly that. "Their opinion isn't any more valid just because they know someone who was targeted."
I think the meaning is pretty clear. Just because I say their opinion isn't any more valid than the other person's doesn't mean I'm saying the other person's is more valid. That's like saying someone is a democrat because they insulted republicans, or vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
But here's the thing: those books were digital. As such, it isn't as if their supply was low.
If anyone should be punished, I think it should be seller who sold the books, not the customers who bought them. I believe those customers should've been allowed to keep the books.
There is absolutely zero point in removing the books from the actual customers. That just punishes them (and since the books can be infinite in number, it's quite pointless) rather than the one that actually sold them.
And then tell me if harming your own customers to try to stop people from copying games is a good thing to do.
Well, as long as most people don't care, it doesn't matter.
And? Books the customers thought were theirs, copies, were suddenly taken away. And for what reason? There was no shortage of supply there. Why take away the copies belonging to the customers?
People will pirate no matter what.
I think I see a problem here. It seems to be an example of wasted votes syndrome. You and people like you are hurting your own boycotts. "Well, no one else will stop, so I'll pirate it anyway." Suddenly, you have one more pirate. And then other people who feel the same way do the same thing.
But definitely don't buy the garbage. I would rather people pirate it than buy it.
Stop kidding yourself that people are making up piracy as some sort of "scare".
Whether what you said is true or not, they are. I'm quite sick of people treating piracy as if it's some sort of national security emergency (rushing draconian bills through left and right). I'm quite sick of people who think the existence of piracy justifies harming all of their customers with DRM.
I consider piracy a continuation of the welfare entitlement
No entitlement is necessary. "It was there, I wanted it, so I downloaded it for free. If it wasn't there, I would get nothing." In that scenario, you're not demanding anything of anyone.
No one said that there is a "need" to play the games. However, the games are available for free, and it is easy to get them. Some people have no problems doing just that.
I suspect they don't see it as a "need," but a way to get more entertainment for free.
This way you resolve the moral dilemma of taking software without paying for it.
Only true if you believe there was such a moral dilemma in the first place.
But the disadvantages to this approach is that you're still supporting companies who use DRM that screw over their customers. And their DRM could get much worse.
It's funny because it's partly true. Why would you keep buying the games? Piracy or not, why buy them?
Either I'm confused as to what you're trying to say, something else is going on, or you're not explaining yourself well enough. In any case, I don't think such vague comments are helping here.
You said "indeed." When has the fact that you would believe something else if you were in a different situation ever proved anyone's conclusion wrong?
Uh... what? I even said that I didn't believe it. I didn't shift the burden of proof on anyone. I just stated what I believe is obvious: you can't be sure it didn't happen. While that may apply to all sorts of things, that does not mean it's an invalid observation. Especially for something like this. People make mistakes all the time. Authority figures are no different.
To elaborate: what do we "need" these laws for? I guess that's how I should've phrased it. If someone were to take into account the consequences of not having these laws, and still disagreed with their existence, then I don't see how they could possibly be objectively incorrect.
Really? So if I were to believe that 1 + 1 = 3 if I were in a different situation than I am now, that would mean that my belief that 1 + 1 = 2 is false because I'd believe differently if I were in a different situation?
A passer-by might not see the need for that. "Heck, it's a well, he has water." But there is still the need regardless of his opinion.
Except in that case, people really do need water to live. I'm talking about "need" as in "some sort of magical entity decided that we need these laws." As I said, this is a subjective matter. Whether people are wrong for disagreeing/agreeing with these laws is subjective.
That's the power of the DRM mentality: punish absolutely everyone whether they did anything or not.
What? Harming all of their customers because they're paranoid of pirates is objectively okay merely because they want to make more money?
I disagree entirely. I don't care how many companies would do the same, either. They're just as bad in my books.
This also confuses me. I hope people who are outraged about the rootkits aren't buying Sony products.
Harm everyone because you're paranoid of pirates. Same thing with DRM. Very nice collective punishment.
Why use the hosts file when you could just switch to Gamemaker?
You're less likely to understand the need for laws to combat discrimination against minorities if you are not affected by such discrimination.
I think what you mean is, "You're more likely to hold a different opinion."
There is no objective "need" for these laws. It all comes down to opinion. And someone's isn't invalid just because they aren't in the same situation as another person.
That would simply invalidate all of his arguments. After all, if anyone would believe differently if they were in a different situation, all of their current beliefs are completely invalid.
This almost reminded me of my extreme buttnudeness.
Hopefully this was made in Gamemaker.
He admitted it's hearsay. There's no difference between hearsay and "there's absolutely no indication that this thing or anything like it ever really happened."
That's not what I said. I said: "Wait... how can you be sure that it didn't happen when you don't know anything about the poster, his friend, or the friend of his friend?"
How can they be absolutely sure that it didn't happen? Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Saying, "I don't believe it happened." is quite different than saying, "It didn't happen."
When you add to that the fact that punching someone who is mugging you isn't a crime in any country, the bullshit-o-meter goes well into the red.
Well, I don't know the laws of every country in the world, so I wouldn't know. I don't believe it happened, but there is always the possibility of screw ups. But then, wouldn't they make a big deal out of it if it did happen?
I meant exactly that. "Their opinion isn't any more valid just because they know someone who was targeted."
I think the meaning is pretty clear. Just because I say their opinion isn't any more valid than the other person's doesn't mean I'm saying the other person's is more valid. That's like saying someone is a democrat because they insulted republicans, or vice versa.
Which is a point I never argued to begin with.
Okay. But my real point was that one side's opinions aren't any more objectively correct than the other's merely because of their circumstances.