It's fair to say that violating copyright on new works is wrong
I don't think that's fair to say at all. Why would violating laws which none have proved to be beneficial be wrong? Yes, there is no proof that copyright is beneficial, and yet we have laws that restrict people's freedom? That is simply pathetic, and our supposedly free societies should be ashamed for implementing such laws without even so much as proving that they do what they say they do.
But even if copyright is beneficial, that would still not make it morally right. Censorship must be opposed, and copyright even infringes upon people's private property rights.
I'm glad people wiser than you get to make the rules.
They're not wiser; they just prefer the violent approach to things. These same people are who we have to thank for the government policies, laws, and organizations which violate our rights (PATRIOT ACT, NSA, TSA, DEA, etc.), so I wouldn't really call them "wiser."
Okay... if you seriously need more than a few minutes to migrate from one document editor to another, you're probably lacking in the intelligence department.
Then who should? Clearly the websites hosting these pictures are uninterested.
Then what's done is done.
How would that be any different than me taking something of yours without your permission.
Because you're not taking anything when a picture is posted online, nor does anyone lose anything tangible (although I would imagine some people would say that the person the pictures/videos lose something vague and intangible, I don't buy that sort of nonsense).
I believe there is a problem in the sense that people shouldn't be cruel and release such photos when that's not what the other person wants, but I do not believe government thugs should intervene.
How many of us have netflix or amazon movie streaming? Buy kindle books? Use steam? Even the books downloadable from my library use some form of protection.
I don't know how many people do those things, but I certainly don't use or have any of the things you mentioned, and for damn good reason.
Most people don't care, because those protections don't impact our typical usage patterns.
Oh, and just because you think what you're saying is harmless, that doesn't mean the government thinks so. There are numerous cases of the government misinterpreting jokes and statements and then proceeding to try to ruin people's lives. Surely you don't want to suffer the same fate? Or do you believe that people who work for the government are perfect angels? From your comment, I would think not, but it's truly baffling that you would suggest that it doesn't matter if the government conducts such surveillance; it does matter, and it is dangerous to let them do so.
I don't see the point in encrypting all my IM either. If the government wants to watch me joke around with my friends, let them.
Then you're part of the problem. You should never let the government conduct such surveillance, and by doing so, you make it more difficult for intelligent people who do care about their privacy to protect said privacy.
You don't want what I know as a "free country." You're constantly posting about how we should just accept surveillance and all the other measures that violate our freedoms (which you probably deny anyway) in the name of fighting terrorism, all the while spamming links that talk about terrorist attacks and how the terrorists are going to get us.
Why did you bother linking to that? If you're trying to say that was a logical fallacy, well, I never said your arguments were wrong because of some aspect of your character or any other such thing, so it isn't. Merely insulting someone isn't a fallacy, if that's what you even intended to convey. If not, then... good job on noticing the insult.
Then I suggest you widen your reading material.
I suggest you stop spamming links to articles about terrorists; no one with a brain cares.
While copyright law leads to some interesting points in this case, would you care to explain how you think this doesn't violate someone's privacy rights?
I did not say it does not violate someone's privacy rights.
no im not, im asking what they could do, what specifically are you suggesting could happen? what are they going to do? what damage is that going to cause?
Why do I need to be specific? How would I know exactly how they'll ruin someone's life, or for what reason?
no you didn't, if you did then you wouldnt have responded in that manner.
I responded hoping that you wouldn't.
which is the same as choosing not to use gmail, you are happy with machines parsing your email so long as they are spam filters but not if they are doing it for targeted advertising, once again youre a fucking idiot with double standards.
No, it isn't, and I don't even use gmail. There are no double standards at work here, but even if there were, that is not relevant to whether or not my arguments are correct.
it seems you are so terribly unable to make a coherent point that you are now resorting to argumentum ad absurdum, you sad cunt.
My point was coherent from the very beginning. "argumentum ad absurdum"? Please. The NSA surveillance is not unlike a fishing expedition.
if it is being misinterpreted then be clearer in your communication, is it ok for machines to read your email or not?
That depends on what the machines are doing and what they were intended to do by their creators.
so how does one go about being not "perfectly fine" with surveillance? what is the difference between you and him?
It's simple: I oppose the surveillance. I'm not "perfectly fine" with it, nor will I ever be. The answer to your questions should have been obvious.
no, it isn't a strawman
It is. I do not advocate that people take little to no action against this nonsense.
(whilst doing nothing effective about it)
What makes you think that? Ceasing to use these services will not stop the government from spying on others, either. That isn't effective, and don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
it always was, what you cant seem to do is to propose a course of action.
I did not deem it necessary, since all I intended to do was attack his attitude. As long as one holds such an attitude, it ensures that nothing will ever change, even more so than if you just took "limp-wristed" actions.
That said, if you want a "course of action," I suggest all the obvious. Write to the people who are supposedly your representatives. Participate in protests. Don't vote for Republicans or Democrats. Tell others to do the same, and tell them why. I already do all of those things.
And if you want me to name a course of action that will instantly solve the problem, no such solution exists. Change comes slowly, but the instant many more people start doing those things, it comes within reach. Other than that, I don't know what more you want.
i can continue using those services, say i'm not perfectly fine with the surveillance aspect and to you that is acceptable?
That's hardly blaming the victim for anything. The blame lies on the one who released the picture for releasing the picture, but that doesn't make the victim of such a thing any less idiotic (if doing such a thing makes someone an idiot to begin with). Telling people to exercise caution is hardly the same as blaming them for someone else's actions, but that doesn't stop people from playing the "blaming the victim" card even when it doesn't make any sense to do so.
What a ridiculous argument. Whether or not he would change his mind if he experienced something awful in the future has nothing to do with whether the arguments he is currently making are valid, and it is a non sequitur to say otherwise.
Ahh yes, exactly what we need. A dead document on delivery that lays out whats allowed and what's not, whatever happends next be damned.
I agree that trying to be too specific would be problematic, but the constitution could definitely do with some updating (in light of new information and abuses, such as the government essentially collecting whatever data it wants from corporations) through the use of amendments. Oh, and stopping the government from violating it as it is now would also be a good start...
Slashdot Mirror
It's fair to say that violating copyright on new works is wrong
I don't think that's fair to say at all. Why would violating laws which none have proved to be beneficial be wrong? Yes, there is no proof that copyright is beneficial, and yet we have laws that restrict people's freedom? That is simply pathetic, and our supposedly free societies should be ashamed for implementing such laws without even so much as proving that they do what they say they do.
But even if copyright is beneficial, that would still not make it morally right. Censorship must be opposed, and copyright even infringes upon people's private property rights.
It can be argued, however, that copying copyrighted content without permission *is* harmful
Any number of things can be argued, but many arguments are ridiculous; that one included.
I'm glad people wiser than you get to make the rules.
They're not wiser; they just prefer the violent approach to things. These same people are who we have to thank for the government policies, laws, and organizations which violate our rights (PATRIOT ACT, NSA, TSA, DEA, etc.), so I wouldn't really call them "wiser."
Okay... if you seriously need more than a few minutes to migrate from one document editor to another, you're probably lacking in the intelligence department.
Then who should? Clearly the websites hosting these pictures are uninterested.
Then what's done is done.
How would that be any different than me taking something of yours without your permission.
Because you're not taking anything when a picture is posted online, nor does anyone lose anything tangible (although I would imagine some people would say that the person the pictures/videos lose something vague and intangible, I don't buy that sort of nonsense).
So we both acknowledge there is a problem.
I believe there is a problem in the sense that people shouldn't be cruel and release such photos when that's not what the other person wants, but I do not believe government thugs should intervene.
How many of us have netflix or amazon movie streaming? Buy kindle books? Use steam? Even the books downloadable from my library use some form of protection.
I don't know how many people do those things, but I certainly don't use or have any of the things you mentioned, and for damn good reason.
Most people don't care, because those protections don't impact our typical usage patterns.
Most people are imbeciles, so who cares?
If it's going to happen anyhow, shouldn't it at least be standardized?
No. Let these retarded users and greedy, evil content providers wade in their own filth.
I don't think they should be allowed to do this surveillance at all
That's a start.
but at the same time, I'm not going to encrypt anything that doesn't actually need encrypted.
Most likely, it does need to be encrypted, but you'll only find that out when it's too late.
Oh, and just because you think what you're saying is harmless, that doesn't mean the government thinks so. There are numerous cases of the government misinterpreting jokes and statements and then proceeding to try to ruin people's lives. Surely you don't want to suffer the same fate? Or do you believe that people who work for the government are perfect angels? From your comment, I would think not, but it's truly baffling that you would suggest that it doesn't matter if the government conducts such surveillance; it does matter, and it is dangerous to let them do so.
I don't see the point in encrypting all my IM either. If the government wants to watch me joke around with my friends, let them.
Then you're part of the problem. You should never let the government conduct such surveillance, and by doing so, you make it more difficult for intelligent people who do care about their privacy to protect said privacy.
Then they are complicit in the crimes against the people, whether or not most people think these things are crimes or not.
And they shouldn't.
It's not public and you should always oppose surveillance, but exercising caution would still do you well.
Since they are disclosed to third parties there is no expectation of privacy under current law.
If that is the case, I believe current laws are morally wrong and should be changed and opposed.
While that's certainly a possibility (given how illogical the law often is), it has nothing to do with whether or not these actions were wrong.
You don't want what I know as a "free country." You're constantly posting about how we should just accept surveillance and all the other measures that violate our freedoms (which you probably deny anyway) in the name of fighting terrorism, all the while spamming links that talk about terrorist attacks and how the terrorists are going to get us.
Why did you bother linking to that? If you're trying to say that was a logical fallacy, well, I never said your arguments were wrong because of some aspect of your character or any other such thing, so it isn't. Merely insulting someone isn't a fallacy, if that's what you even intended to convey. If not, then... good job on noticing the insult.
Then I suggest you widen your reading material.
I suggest you stop spamming links to articles about terrorists; no one with a brain cares.
While copyright law leads to some interesting points in this case, would you care to explain how you think this doesn't violate someone's privacy rights?
I did not say it does not violate someone's privacy rights.
no im not, im asking what they could do, what specifically are you suggesting could happen? what are they going to do? what damage is that going to cause?
Why do I need to be specific? How would I know exactly how they'll ruin someone's life, or for what reason?
no you didn't, if you did then you wouldnt have responded in that manner.
I responded hoping that you wouldn't.
which is the same as choosing not to use gmail, you are happy with machines parsing your email so long as they are spam filters but not if they are doing it for targeted advertising, once again youre a fucking idiot with double standards.
No, it isn't, and I don't even use gmail. There are no double standards at work here, but even if there were, that is not relevant to whether or not my arguments are correct.
it seems you are so terribly unable to make a coherent point that you are now resorting to argumentum ad absurdum, you sad cunt.
My point was coherent from the very beginning. "argumentum ad absurdum"? Please. The NSA surveillance is not unlike a fishing expedition.
if it is being misinterpreted then be clearer in your communication, is it ok for machines to read your email or not?
That depends on what the machines are doing and what they were intended to do by their creators.
so how does one go about being not "perfectly fine" with surveillance? what is the difference between you and him?
It's simple: I oppose the surveillance. I'm not "perfectly fine" with it, nor will I ever be. The answer to your questions should have been obvious.
no, it isn't a strawman
It is. I do not advocate that people take little to no action against this nonsense.
(whilst doing nothing effective about it)
What makes you think that? Ceasing to use these services will not stop the government from spying on others, either. That isn't effective, and don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
it always was, what you cant seem to do is to propose a course of action.
I did not deem it necessary, since all I intended to do was attack his attitude. As long as one holds such an attitude, it ensures that nothing will ever change, even more so than if you just took "limp-wristed" actions.
That said, if you want a "course of action," I suggest all the obvious. Write to the people who are supposedly your representatives. Participate in protests. Don't vote for Republicans or Democrats. Tell others to do the same, and tell them why. I already do all of those things.
And if you want me to name a course of action that will instantly solve the problem, no such solution exists. Change comes slowly, but the instant many more people start doing those things, it comes within reach. Other than that, I don't know what more you want.
i can continue using those services, say i'm not perfectly fine with the surveillance aspect and to you that is acceptable?
Not if that's all you're doing.
That's hardly blaming the victim for anything. The blame lies on the one who released the picture for releasing the picture, but that doesn't make the victim of such a thing any less idiotic (if doing such a thing makes someone an idiot to begin with). Telling people to exercise caution is hardly the same as blaming them for someone else's actions, but that doesn't stop people from playing the "blaming the victim" card even when it doesn't make any sense to do so.
What a ridiculous argument. Whether or not he would change his mind if he experienced something awful in the future has nothing to do with whether the arguments he is currently making are valid, and it is a non sequitur to say otherwise.
Copyright is garbage to begin with.
Ahh yes, exactly what we need. A dead document on delivery that lays out whats allowed and what's not, whatever happends next be damned.
I agree that trying to be too specific would be problematic, but the constitution could definitely do with some updating (in light of new information and abuses, such as the government essentially collecting whatever data it wants from corporations) through the use of amendments. Oh, and stopping the government from violating it as it is now would also be a good start...
Some of the replies indicate that it's still not clear yet.