If you are afraid to be known for your comments and insist on posting anonymously, then your credibility isn't worth shit and your comments are, for the most part, not worth consideration.
And if an AC claims that 1 + 1 = 2, he must be wrong, or not credible! Yeah!
Or maybe they're not "afraid" of identifying themselves (Seriously, how hard or scary would it be to make an account? Do you think you're a tough guy or something?) but simply don't want an account and want people to interpret each of their messages in ways that don't involve taking into accounts all the other posts they've made.
Maybe that's easier to believe when you have automation software scrubbing YouTube for possibly infringing material and you have tens of thousands of copyright works to protect.
There's not really anything to protect them from to begin with.
If I live in a town where police are allowed to murder anyone who breaks the law on the spot if they know the people broke the law and I haven't done anything wrong, that affects my life how?
In which fairy tail land do you live where the government is entirely composed of perfect beings who never make mistakes and never abuse their powers? You certainly don't live on Earth, because history is absolutely filled with examples of government corruption.
It's also funny how regulations and policies have never stopped abusive governments in the past, so why would they now? Our government is clearly willing to violate the highest law of the land, so why exactly would a few inconsequential policies and rules stop them?
I didn't miss your point. Most voters are uninformed (most people who don't vote are uninformed as well), and even worse, a grand majority of them aren't rational. I was just saying that I wish we had more rational people in general.
Would you invest many hours of your time for an expected value of $1?
I don't know how many hours we're talking about here. It's not hard to be much more informed than people who vote for either of the two largest parties, and it doesn't really require that many hours of time to be significantly more informed than them. If nothing is done, nothing will ever change.
slippery-slope arguments are defined by the up-front concession that the current issue is not a serious problem.
Incorrect. You can list multiple problems that something has currently and then also include a slippery slope argument against that something. Slippery slope arguments aren't always fallacies and aren't always invalid.
and it is ok because it is not a deal breaker which is all netflix really cares about.
What you really meant was that nothing will change until people stop giving these companies their money, not that buying the product means you enjoy every aspect of it.
if it is unacceptable or not ok then what are you doing about it? nothing, so why should anybody care.
It is unacceptable to me; that's why I don't use Netflix.
Technically he quoted the entire comment, but he really only responded to what I said in the second sentence. I suppose I could have been more specific rather than just saying I never mentioned myself at all.
Funny, I don't recall anyone ever being arrested for googling "pressure cooker." Perhaps you could cite a source. As for joking at the airport, I can tell all the "chicken that crossed the road" and "my wife is so fat" jokes I want without ever getting arrested.
If you talk about bombs at an airport, even in jest, chances are you'll be harassed by government thugs (perhaps the same thugs that grope you at said airport). There was also a case where someone said something about bombing an airport on Twitter because his flight was delayed or some such; it was an obvious joke, and yet they overreacted to it completely. I'm not saying you will, but if you find this justifiable, you're part of the problem.
If, however, I tell a "joke" that starts with "I have a bomb and I want to kill people with it" then that gets attention real fast -- as it should. It's the equivalent of shouting "fire!' in a crowded theater, and as such your example is a poor one. Got anything any better?
Ah, so freedom of speech doesn't matter to you. Noted.
Taking into account the future and human nature is not "always bad"; it's simply an intelligent move. Saying that slippery slope arguments are always bad, no matter what you think of this particular one, is just silly.
Ridiculous. Stop using analogies that conflate the open web (and yes, the Internet is open by default, and that is commonly understood to be the case) with physical property; it doesn't work and never will work.
The simplest and best idea is to simply get rid of copyright entirely; not only is there no evidence that it works (Blind speculation does not count as evidence.), but since it infringes upon individual liberties, it simply should not exist.
One of the flawed parts of the constitution. By the way, it does not say that artists have a right to be paid for their work; copyright is just a means to an end, and that is encouraging innovation. If there were some other way to encourage innovation without monopolies maintained by the force of government, that would technically be fine too. Copyright is not for the artists, but for society, or at least that's how it should be.
That said, there is zero evidence that copyright actually does encourage innovation (No one can say what a world without copyright would be like without first living in a society like ours that does not have copyright; anything else is just guessing, and restricting people's freedoms based off of guesswork shouldn't be allowed.), and even if it does, it's not worth the loss of freedom that it demands.
I find it rather unlikely that anyone truly feels "entitled" to Game of Thrones; it is more likely that because it is there and available for download, people download it. I imagine very few people are truly demanding that people let them download Game of Thrones (or anything else, really) for free. Is anyone who holds copyrights a greedy leech who feels entitled to a monopoly maintained by the force of government that infringes upon people's individual liberties? I actually think that's at least somewhat more likely than the sort of entitlement you mentioned, but more likely, they use it because it's there.
Oh yeah.. they were so principled that they downloaded seasons of The Office or Game of Thrones or photoshop or office or whatever.
Straw man. I never said that they were principled because they infringe upon copyright; I said the fact that they do infringe upon copyright does not mean they have no principles at all, and indeed, that it's unlikely that they don't.
Are you going to argue against what I actually said, or are you going to argue against straw men?
Like people who want to enforce F/OSS copyright?
Possibly, but you should probably note that what I said was a response to the ridiculous notion that people are greedy little freeloaders just because they download content; this is no more true than saying that people who agree with copyright are entitled brats who just want government monopolies over ideas.
Its simple:- Copyright is a tool.
One that some feel violates individual liberties by infringing upon physical property rights (Can't use your own resources to make something protected under copyright.) and by utilizing censorship (What happens to websites when they're caught infringing upon copyright and the system cares enough to take action?).
Don't pretend that the debate is over or that you're automatically right simply because you have different priorities.
People don't like hypocrits.
There is no hypocrisy here, and such name-calling is rather pointless.
Because the vast majority I've met don't. They just want free stuff.
Even if what you say is indeed true, that doesn't mean that they completely lack principles.
A good portion of the ones who claim to have principles developed ex post facto as a justification for their desire to get free stuff.
At any rate, how do you know this, exactly? I suppose anyone who agrees with copyright is simply greedy and wants monopolies maintained by the force of the government?
Although, I suppose the reason why someone wants something is irrelevant to whether or not their arguments are correct.
Slashdot Mirror
I was more so referring to the article writer's idiotic idea of simply ignoring the constitution.
This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives (many of both of them want to violate the constitution), but just plain stupidity.
Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.
We're slipping towards a police state and he says this nonsense? Yes, just ignore the damn thing; we've done so in the past, so it's okay!
No loss to you, you mean. What, you think only things you find valuable are valuable?
If you are afraid to be known for your comments and insist on posting anonymously, then your credibility isn't worth shit and your comments are, for the most part, not worth consideration.
And if an AC claims that 1 + 1 = 2, he must be wrong, or not credible! Yeah!
Or maybe they're not "afraid" of identifying themselves (Seriously, how hard or scary would it be to make an account? Do you think you're a tough guy or something?) but simply don't want an account and want people to interpret each of their messages in ways that don't involve taking into accounts all the other posts they've made.
Identify yourself or be laughed at and ridiculed.
Thanks for identifying yourself, msobkow.
Maybe that's easier to believe when you have automation software scrubbing YouTube for possibly infringing material and you have tens of thousands of copyright works to protect.
There's not really anything to protect them from to begin with.
If I live in a town where police are allowed to murder anyone who breaks the law on the spot if they know the people broke the law and I haven't done anything wrong, that affects my life how?
In which fairy tail land do you live where the government is entirely composed of perfect beings who never make mistakes and never abuse their powers? You certainly don't live on Earth, because history is absolutely filled with examples of government corruption.
It's also funny how regulations and policies have never stopped abusive governments in the past, so why would they now? Our government is clearly willing to violate the highest law of the land, so why exactly would a few inconsequential policies and rules stop them?
I didn't miss your point. Most voters are uninformed (most people who don't vote are uninformed as well), and even worse, a grand majority of them aren't rational. I was just saying that I wish we had more rational people in general.
Would you invest many hours of your time for an expected value of $1?
I don't know how many hours we're talking about here. It's not hard to be much more informed than people who vote for either of the two largest parties, and it doesn't really require that many hours of time to be significantly more informed than them. If nothing is done, nothing will ever change.
slippery-slope arguments are defined by the up-front concession that the current issue is not a serious problem.
Incorrect. You can list multiple problems that something has currently and then also include a slippery slope argument against that something. Slippery slope arguments aren't always fallacies and aren't always invalid.
and it is ok because it is not a deal breaker which is all netflix really cares about.
What you really meant was that nothing will change until people stop giving these companies their money, not that buying the product means you enjoy every aspect of it.
if it is unacceptable or not ok then what are you doing about it? nothing, so why should anybody care.
It is unacceptable to me; that's why I don't use Netflix.
That being said, many of the Tor exit nodes are run by three-letter government agencies.
Really? Not that I think there aren't any, but how do you know that they're numerous?
Technically he quoted the entire comment, but he really only responded to what I said in the second sentence. I suppose I could have been more specific rather than just saying I never mentioned myself at all.
Funny, I don't recall anyone ever being arrested for googling "pressure cooker." Perhaps you could cite a source. As for joking at the airport, I can tell all the "chicken that crossed the road" and "my wife is so fat" jokes I want without ever getting arrested.
If you talk about bombs at an airport, even in jest, chances are you'll be harassed by government thugs (perhaps the same thugs that grope you at said airport). There was also a case where someone said something about bombing an airport on Twitter because his flight was delayed or some such; it was an obvious joke, and yet they overreacted to it completely. I'm not saying you will, but if you find this justifiable, you're part of the problem.
If, however, I tell a "joke" that starts with "I have a bomb and I want to kill people with it" then that gets attention real fast -- as it should. It's the equivalent of shouting "fire!' in a crowded theater, and as such your example is a poor one. Got anything any better?
Ah, so freedom of speech doesn't matter to you. Noted.
Slippery slope arguments are always bad
Taking into account the future and human nature is not "always bad"; it's simply an intelligent move. Saying that slippery slope arguments are always bad, no matter what you think of this particular one, is just silly.
Ridiculous. Stop using analogies that conflate the open web (and yes, the Internet is open by default, and that is commonly understood to be the case) with physical property; it doesn't work and never will work.
a self-sustaining entirely rational population of uninformed voters.
If only most of these "uninformed voters" actually were rational...
The simplest and best idea is to simply get rid of copyright entirely; not only is there no evidence that it works (Blind speculation does not count as evidence.), but since it infringes upon individual liberties, it simply should not exist.
They got the right in the Constitution:
One of the flawed parts of the constitution. By the way, it does not say that artists have a right to be paid for their work; copyright is just a means to an end, and that is encouraging innovation. If there were some other way to encourage innovation without monopolies maintained by the force of government, that would technically be fine too. Copyright is not for the artists, but for society, or at least that's how it should be.
That said, there is zero evidence that copyright actually does encourage innovation (No one can say what a world without copyright would be like without first living in a society like ours that does not have copyright; anything else is just guessing, and restricting people's freedoms based off of guesswork shouldn't be allowed.), and even if it does, it's not worth the loss of freedom that it demands.
because the actual damages were certainly greater than $.99 for the loss of distribution exclusivity
Don't you mean they were less than $0.99? They literally lost no money at all.
At one point in time the US was more free then other countries.
Who was more free? Women? Blacks? Japanese citizens? Please specify.
I find it rather unlikely that anyone truly feels "entitled" to Game of Thrones; it is more likely that because it is there and available for download, people download it. I imagine very few people are truly demanding that people let them download Game of Thrones (or anything else, really) for free. Is anyone who holds copyrights a greedy leech who feels entitled to a monopoly maintained by the force of government that infringes upon people's individual liberties? I actually think that's at least somewhat more likely than the sort of entitlement you mentioned, but more likely, they use it because it's there.
Yes, you did. Unless you think the word "my" is not a personal reference.
Not in the second sentence, which is what he replied to, I didn't.
Oh yeah.. they were so principled that they downloaded seasons of The Office or Game of Thrones or photoshop or office or whatever.
Straw man. I never said that they were principled because they infringe upon copyright; I said the fact that they do infringe upon copyright does not mean they have no principles at all, and indeed, that it's unlikely that they don't.
Are you going to argue against what I actually said, or are you going to argue against straw men?
Like people who want to enforce F/OSS copyright?
Possibly, but you should probably note that what I said was a response to the ridiculous notion that people are greedy little freeloaders just because they download content; this is no more true than saying that people who agree with copyright are entitled brats who just want government monopolies over ideas.
Its simple:- Copyright is a tool.
One that some feel violates individual liberties by infringing upon physical property rights (Can't use your own resources to make something protected under copyright.) and by utilizing censorship (What happens to websites when they're caught infringing upon copyright and the system cares enough to take action?).
Don't pretend that the debate is over or that you're automatically right simply because you have different priorities.
People don't like hypocrits.
There is no hypocrisy here, and such name-calling is rather pointless.
Because the vast majority I've met don't. They just want free stuff.
Even if what you say is indeed true, that doesn't mean that they completely lack principles.
A good portion of the ones who claim to have principles developed ex post facto as a justification for their desire to get free stuff.
At any rate, how do you know this, exactly? I suppose anyone who agrees with copyright is simply greedy and wants monopolies maintained by the force of the government?
Although, I suppose the reason why someone wants something is irrelevant to whether or not their arguments are correct.