This sort of thing is why copyright should only last for 10 year (or less). No extensions. No nothing. 10 (or less) years. If you can't profit in that amount of time, that's life.
Rightly so? Rightly so!? You're saying it's okay for the government to outsource its spying to corporations? You're completely insane.
As far as AT&T or Google is concerned, this sort of information is explicitly their property, not yours.
It doesn't matter what corporations think. We the people technically have the power to create new (new in your eyes, anyway) rules that say that emails and other such things cannot simply be spied on by the government without a warrant, and should they fail to follow the rules, any evidence they find would be tossed out in court (as it should be). It doesn't matter that the emails and such are stored on someone else's property; the one being restricted would be the government.
Even if they can't, the fact that the data was collected at all is absolutely disgusting. And that's just you taking the government's word for it.
Were the government made up of perfect angels, the fact that they allegedly need a warrant to look at data would make everything less concerning. However, this data can be abused by anyone, can be accessed by judges who rubberstamp warrants, and the rules could change in the future quite readily. It is foolish to trust the government here.
The garbage people taking my trash every week is a bigger privacy invasion than this
Up and until I realized just how much money (ad revenue) they were generating based on stolen content
They have no "stolen content." They simply make money due to the ads; what's the problem?
That's where I draw the line, that's when it becomes stealing.
How is making money off of ads stealing? Content is irrelevant; it's either normally stealing or it isn't, and ads don't factor into that. By the way, as to whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, well, it's not.
But once the person helping me steal it does so to profit, I do consider that a crime.
If you made $100M (really that, not RIAA funny-math $100M, mind) then that is $100M that the original owners could have made.
Except when you consider that the prices official sources charge are usually much more. People most likely bought software from him because he was selling it at a cheaper price. Would they have bought it otherwise? Who knows? But why should we assume they would have?
You take things "off the table" without actual knowledge.
Well, of course. For all intents and purposes, it's so unlikely it's not even worth mentioning. I suppose you entertain the notion of Santa Claus existing, too? History has shown us that giving the government the benefit of the doubt is a very, very bad idea. Surely you're not also naive enough to think otherwise?
That said, freedom is more important than security. Surely you can see this, yes?
This is the core of the issue -- nobody likes to see our constitution be ignored, but the government seems to be focused on helping us.
What happened to "land of the free, home of the brave"? What brave person would give up freedoms for security?
Give me one good reason I should give our government the benefit of the doubt when history has shown us that people with power will abuse it. In fact, history has shown us that even the US government will abuse its power. Why are you and that other fellow so disgustingly naive?
It's kind of hard to have sympathy for these types of whistle blowers, when their actions place our country at risk.
How did it place our country at risk? The only people placing our country at risk are those who betray its constitution.
when we don't even know what we are condemning.
That's part of the problem! They're so secretive that we don't know what they're doing, and thanks to such secrecy, they were able to violate people's rights and make it difficult for anyone to challenge them. Such things should absolutely not be allowed to begin with; they are the antithesis to a good democracy.
Because we don't need real estate law or admiralty law or antiquities law or commercial law?
That just shows that there are differences, but they are all still physical property.
That's exactly what real property is: a government-enforced monopoly on the idea of exclusive control of land.
You're an imbecile if you can't see the difference between a monopoly on certain data that may well be stored on someone else's physical equipment and imaginary property. Nice try, though. I'll assume you're truly a complete imbecile if you make any further objections.
But the PS4 is still closed and will more than likely have the usual draconian restrictions that pretty much all the consoles have. Better to not buy any of them at all.
I wouldn't consider buying any of the new consoles. Giving money to these companies would be supporting DRM and closed platforms, and I just couldn't feel good about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh... that's too long. It shouldn't be longer than 10 years, and some might say that even that is too long.
This sort of thing is why copyright should only last for 10 year (or less). No extensions. No nothing. 10 (or less) years. If you can't profit in that amount of time, that's life.
And rightly so
Rightly so? Rightly so!? You're saying it's okay for the government to outsource its spying to corporations? You're completely insane.
As far as AT&T or Google is concerned, this sort of information is explicitly their property, not yours.
It doesn't matter what corporations think. We the people technically have the power to create new (new in your eyes, anyway) rules that say that emails and other such things cannot simply be spied on by the government without a warrant, and should they fail to follow the rules, any evidence they find would be tossed out in court (as it should be). It doesn't matter that the emails and such are stored on someone else's property; the one being restricted would be the government.
Saying that he is one of the more level-headed people arguing for this disgusting practice isn't much of a compliment; he's still completely insane.
He does have some good points that there REALLY ARE bad guys out there and we have organizations to go stop them.
Everyone knows this. The problem is, freedom is far more important than security. He has no good points.
Honestly, arguments like his are what leads to nonsense like the TSA.
And it looks like that system is being side-stepped in a very illegal manner.
It was obvious it was going to happen, considering what it is.
Therefore, losing some privacy may be a necessary evil.
Well, it's not, and it won't be.
Which one is more important?
Privacy, obviously. Anyone who says otherwise is a naive fool.
No matter how you look at it, his opportunities were all pissed away. I bet he's just lashing out at everyone because of that.
And they can't look at it without a warrant.
Even if they can't, the fact that the data was collected at all is absolutely disgusting. And that's just you taking the government's word for it.
Were the government made up of perfect angels, the fact that they allegedly need a warrant to look at data would make everything less concerning. However, this data can be abused by anyone, can be accessed by judges who rubberstamp warrants, and the rules could change in the future quite readily. It is foolish to trust the government here.
The garbage people taking my trash every week is a bigger privacy invasion than this
and my morals are weak I guess.
Indeed.
They will feast on what is inside.
Up and until I realized just how much money (ad revenue) they were generating based on stolen content
They have no "stolen content." They simply make money due to the ads; what's the problem?
That's where I draw the line, that's when it becomes stealing.
How is making money off of ads stealing? Content is irrelevant; it's either normally stealing or it isn't, and ads don't factor into that. By the way, as to whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, well, it's not.
But once the person helping me steal it does so to profit, I do consider that a crime.
Why? That's 100% arbitrary.
Wouldn't you have to take and/or mess around with their physical property before you could do that, though?
If you made $100M (really that, not RIAA funny-math $100M, mind) then that is $100M that the original owners could have made.
Except when you consider that the prices official sources charge are usually much more. People most likely bought software from him because he was selling it at a cheaper price. Would they have bought it otherwise? Who knows? But why should we assume they would have?
I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves
If you know a lot of people who steal other people's copies of photoshop, you're probably hanging out with the wrong crowd.
You take things "off the table" without actual knowledge.
Well, of course. For all intents and purposes, it's so unlikely it's not even worth mentioning. I suppose you entertain the notion of Santa Claus existing, too? History has shown us that giving the government the benefit of the doubt is a very, very bad idea. Surely you're not also naive enough to think otherwise?
That said, freedom is more important than security. Surely you can see this, yes?
Who decides that it's a poor tradeoff? That's absolutely subjective.
This is the core of the issue -- nobody likes to see our constitution be ignored, but the government seems to be focused on helping us.
What happened to "land of the free, home of the brave"? What brave person would give up freedoms for security?
Give me one good reason I should give our government the benefit of the doubt when history has shown us that people with power will abuse it. In fact, history has shown us that even the US government will abuse its power. Why are you and that other fellow so disgustingly naive?
It's kind of hard to have sympathy for these types of whistle blowers, when their actions place our country at risk.
How did it place our country at risk? The only people placing our country at risk are those who betray its constitution.
when we don't even know what we are condemning.
That's part of the problem! They're so secretive that we don't know what they're doing, and thanks to such secrecy, they were able to violate people's rights and make it difficult for anyone to challenge them. Such things should absolutely not be allowed to begin with; they are the antithesis to a good democracy.
This law will fail in the courts, if the courts have any sanity left.
Remember that the courts allowed the TSA.
Since censorship is evil, it's a problem whether or not it's effective.
Isn't that cute? The baby is terrified.
Because we don't need real estate law or admiralty law or antiquities law or commercial law?
That just shows that there are differences, but they are all still physical property.
That's exactly what real property is: a government-enforced monopoly on the idea of exclusive control of land.
You're an imbecile if you can't see the difference between a monopoly on certain data that may well be stored on someone else's physical equipment and imaginary property. Nice try, though. I'll assume you're truly a complete imbecile if you make any further objections.
I'm getting tired of hearing this. We did "vote these people out" and got Barack Obama.
There's your problem. You're not supposed to vote out republicans and then vote democrats in; in matters such as these, they're more or less the same.
I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps.
Not by the government, I hope.
But the PS4 is still closed and will more than likely have the usual draconian restrictions that pretty much all the consoles have. Better to not buy any of them at all.
I wouldn't consider buying any of the new consoles. Giving money to these companies would be supporting DRM and closed platforms, and I just couldn't feel good about that.