And regardless of religious background, it is still impolite to use such language.
Impolite? They're mere strings of letters, just like any other words. The only difference is that some people are irrational enough to be offended by these words and expect others to stop using them simply because they don't like to hear them.
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not the government should be able to collect all of this information. And I'm still not entirely sure what his point was. Why talk about Facebook and all that other garbage when this article is about government thugs spying?
If there wasn't a stigma and technical difficulties to piracy, why would anybody every buy the actual product
Some people have no qualms with copyright infringement but still wish to contribute to the authors from time to time. But yes, many people are imbeciles, so they do have trouble doing something as simple as downloading some data and perhaps applying a crack; the DRM doesn't often make that process much more difficult.
they do this because they realize selling a product with DRM is a better business model
It might be a better business model, but that still doesn't mean that DRM is morally right.
Well that is not such as easy argument as you make it out to be.
It is to me. If it's not to you, then our opinions simply differ. There is no inherent contradiction here.
There has indeed been controversy about medical research based on the "work" done in Nazi concentration camps.
I don't care what others think; I care what I think. Even if there is some controversy (and I have no idea exactly what you're referring to here), chances are, I'd disagree with the people who think we should just discard the results.
With that said, if there is indeed a "controversy," then that implies there are at least two sides in the debate. Saying I am "internally inconsistent" is therefore premature at best.
The ethical debate about that isn't as easy as you make it out to be here.
It is to me. Again, morality is subjective.
You make arguments that are internally inconsistent
You've failed to point out any inconsistencies.
Again I'd ask "Explain how your actions are distinguishable from someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?"
I've already answered that. Actually, the last time you asked that question, it was worded slightly differently.
As I asked before, what actions are you referring to? And again, as I already said, I want copyright abolished, so I don't think it's morally wrong to infringe upon copyright. Surely even if you disagree with me, you understand this much?
And actually, if people used slaves to bring about a cure for cancer, there would be no reason not to use it. The thing to do would be to get rid of slavery (which I believe to be unjust), not get rid of the cure for cancer that slaves helped create. The cure (product) is not the problem; slavery (copyright) is.
If I thought something was the product of an unethical system like slavery I wouldn't find a way to get a copy of it so I could enjoy it.
Then you're irrational. There is no sense in throwing away the product because the product itself is not what is unethical.
Your arguments don't make sense except as an excuse for you to download/pirate things.
Correction: My arguments don't make sense to you, just like yours don't to me. And I don't think attacking me will solve anything.
If you TRULY thought the system of copyright was unethical you wouldn't participate in that market.
You can't decide what I would or wouldn't do, nor can you decide what I truly believe. Would you like me to make statements about what you believe? It is easy. You don't really believe that. In fact, you agree with with my opinions completely. You want copyright abolished.
See? It is simple, and it is nonsensical. Telling others what they believe reminds me of something a fundamentalist would do.
There is no reason for me to not use the products because I have no qualms with the products themselves. There is nothing irrational or contradictory here.
We have no idea what products would or wouldn't exist without copyright.
With that said, yes. Why not use something if it exists? What bought it about is irrelevant. Why would you throw away something useful simply because of its place of origin, or something equally as silly? I believe it to be perfectly rational and sensible to use the products regardless; it is copyright I have a problem with, not necessarily the products themselves.
First of all before this post you kept saying "real property"
Meaning tangible. The computer I'm using now is my property, and it is also tangible.
So you disagree with copyright infringement laws?
I want copyright abolished.
Explain again how your actions
What actions?
someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?
Since I believe copyright is morally wrong, I do not have a problem with someone who copies information, even if it's copyright infringement. My moral code is not determined by the law.
Seriously? The right to use your own property as you see fit. You can't, say, buy a copy of the book and use your own property to make copies and distribute or sell them; that would be copyright infringement. Then there is the fact that websites are taken down or censored by the government for allegedly aiding people in infringing upon people's copyrights.
Oh, I don't doubt your ability to rationalize your behavior
Then I don't think you should doubt your own ability to form biases and identity anything you don't like as 'wrong.' And rationalizations are unnecessary; I'm merely telling you what I believe.
Furthermore, telling me that I'm 'rationalizing' is not a logical argument. You can also say that anyone is 'rationalizing' anything; I don't think it's very productive.
Ill-gotten? People bought a product that others were selling. I believe using copyright to eliminate competition (which is pretty much its purpose) is immoral, not that selling something is wrong.
The logical extension of that would be the end of most software, books, movies.
Well, merely downloading something does not mean you're entitled. Entitlement is basically believing that you are owed something, and the act of downloading something does not necessarily indicate that you believe that other people should provide you with any copies. In fact, merely making use of copyright also does not necessarily mean you feel entitled, even though I believe copyright to be wrong.
Morality is subjective. I do not believe that merely copying information released to the public is harmful because no one loses anything tangible that they actually possessed. Unless you can summon a magical being who dictates what is and is not wrong, the chances of you making me believe otherwise are rather slim, yes?
Stealing what? Their property is not involved at all. You're not even using a website (or something such as that) that they own to obtain the copies; someone is voluntarily using their own equipment to send you a copy. To say that this is somehow "stealing" is utterly absurd.
If the deal is "you can pay us money to play our game"
It would make slightly more sense if you're talking about using the 'illegitimate' copy to play online on their servers, but if that's not what you mean, then no "stealing" is involved.
regardless of weasel words.
Weasel words are at work here, but I'm not the one using them. It is known as "copyright infringement," even legally. Calling it "stealing" and other such things only confuses the matter and makes the ignorant even more ignorant.
Yes. Sometimes websites are censored (a violation of free speech/expression) because they supposedly help others infringe upon copyrights. And if I can't use my own resources to duplicate that book after I obtain my own copy or someone voluntarily lends me theirs, that is most definitely an infringement upon my private property rights.
If you don't accept it as ethical you have the option to refuse to participate in that market.
Well, that is an option, but there is also yet one more option: ignore copyright. Many people do this, and many simply don't care. You can claim that it is 'wrong,' but that is nothing more than an opinion.
It seems awfully like you are just finding a convenient justification to refuse to pay for something.
What services? When someone else voluntarily lets me copy data from them (from their own equipment) to my private property, that does not involve the ones who originally assembled the data at all; they are simply unaffected, and they neither gain nor lose anything.
Slashdot Mirror
And regardless of religious background, it is still impolite to use such language.
Impolite? They're mere strings of letters, just like any other words. The only difference is that some people are irrational enough to be offended by these words and expect others to stop using them simply because they don't like to hear them.
What's this? More garbage from a bootlicker? What a surprise!
Devil's advocate: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When you're restricting people (as copyright does), you'd damn well better have evidence on your side, at the very least. Freedom is the default.
Students who lack basic numeracy because of a terrible education (very common in poorer areas... read up on public schooling in LA, NYC, Chicago)
I'm not sure about basic numeracy, but a grand majority of public schools in the US (and many other countries) are simply abysmal.
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not the government should be able to collect all of this information. And I'm still not entirely sure what his point was. Why talk about Facebook and all that other garbage when this article is about government thugs spying?
If there wasn't a stigma and technical difficulties to piracy, why would anybody every buy the actual product
Some people have no qualms with copyright infringement but still wish to contribute to the authors from time to time. But yes, many people are imbeciles, so they do have trouble doing something as simple as downloading some data and perhaps applying a crack; the DRM doesn't often make that process much more difficult.
they do this because they realize selling a product with DRM is a better business model
It might be a better business model, but that still doesn't mean that DRM is morally right.
It is most certainly not public, and such an attitude is also the problem. All of these things are merely excuses for tyranny.
Well that is not such as easy argument as you make it out to be.
It is to me. If it's not to you, then our opinions simply differ. There is no inherent contradiction here.
There has indeed been controversy about medical research based on the "work" done in Nazi concentration camps.
I don't care what others think; I care what I think. Even if there is some controversy (and I have no idea exactly what you're referring to here), chances are, I'd disagree with the people who think we should just discard the results.
With that said, if there is indeed a "controversy," then that implies there are at least two sides in the debate. Saying I am "internally inconsistent" is therefore premature at best.
The ethical debate about that isn't as easy as you make it out to be here.
It is to me. Again, morality is subjective.
You make arguments that are internally inconsistent
You've failed to point out any inconsistencies.
Again I'd ask "Explain how your actions are distinguishable from someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?"
I've already answered that. Actually, the last time you asked that question, it was worded slightly differently.
As I asked before, what actions are you referring to? And again, as I already said, I want copyright abolished, so I don't think it's morally wrong to infringe upon copyright. Surely even if you disagree with me, you understand this much?
What if I don't recognise that right?
It's actually not even a right. Does the right to free speech disappear with time? In all honesty, it's more of a privilege than anything else.
And actually, if people used slaves to bring about a cure for cancer, there would be no reason not to use it. The thing to do would be to get rid of slavery (which I believe to be unjust), not get rid of the cure for cancer that slaves helped create. The cure (product) is not the problem; slavery (copyright) is.
If I thought something was the product of an unethical system like slavery I wouldn't find a way to get a copy of it so I could enjoy it.
Then you're irrational. There is no sense in throwing away the product because the product itself is not what is unethical.
Your arguments don't make sense except as an excuse for you to download/pirate things.
Correction: My arguments don't make sense to you, just like yours don't to me. And I don't think attacking me will solve anything.
If you TRULY thought the system of copyright was unethical you wouldn't participate in that market.
You can't decide what I would or wouldn't do, nor can you decide what I truly believe. Would you like me to make statements about what you believe? It is easy. You don't really believe that. In fact, you agree with with my opinions completely. You want copyright abolished.
See? It is simple, and it is nonsensical. Telling others what they believe reminds me of something a fundamentalist would do.
There is no reason for me to not use the products because I have no qualms with the products themselves. There is nothing irrational or contradictory here.
We have no idea what products would or wouldn't exist without copyright.
With that said, yes. Why not use something if it exists? What bought it about is irrelevant. Why would you throw away something useful simply because of its place of origin, or something equally as silly? I believe it to be perfectly rational and sensible to use the products regardless; it is copyright I have a problem with, not necessarily the products themselves.
First of all before this post you kept saying "real property"
Meaning tangible. The computer I'm using now is my property, and it is also tangible.
So you disagree with copyright infringement laws?
I want copyright abolished.
Explain again how your actions
What actions?
someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?
Since I believe copyright is morally wrong, I do not have a problem with someone who copies information, even if it's copyright infringement. My moral code is not determined by the law.
what real property right is infringed upon?
Seriously? The right to use your own property as you see fit. You can't, say, buy a copy of the book and use your own property to make copies and distribute or sell them; that would be copyright infringement. Then there is the fact that websites are taken down or censored by the government for allegedly aiding people in infringing upon people's copyrights.
Oh, I don't doubt your ability to rationalize your behavior
Then I don't think you should doubt your own ability to form biases and identity anything you don't like as 'wrong.' And rationalizations are unnecessary; I'm merely telling you what I believe.
Furthermore, telling me that I'm 'rationalizing' is not a logical argument. You can also say that anyone is 'rationalizing' anything; I don't think it's very productive.
Ill-gotten? People bought a product that others were selling. I believe using copyright to eliminate competition (which is pretty much its purpose) is immoral, not that selling something is wrong.
The logical extension of that would be the end of most software, books, movies.
There is no proof of such a thing.
Done this already.
Well, merely downloading something does not mean you're entitled. Entitlement is basically believing that you are owed something, and the act of downloading something does not necessarily indicate that you believe that other people should provide you with any copies. In fact, merely making use of copyright also does not necessarily mean you feel entitled, even though I believe copyright to be wrong.
Morality is subjective. I do not believe that merely copying information released to the public is harmful because no one loses anything tangible that they actually possessed. Unless you can summon a magical being who dictates what is and is not wrong, the chances of you making me believe otherwise are rather slim, yes?
If you don't pay what you should, you are stealing. It really is as simple as that.
Look, I can make statements too, but that's not going to help you convince me of anything.
If you copy something, you're not stealing. It really is as simple as that. Convinced? No? Well, who would have thought!
You might check the batteries on your moral compass
I can certainly see that you believe copyright infringement to be wrong, but that is where we differ. Morality is subjective to begin with.
Would you go from deciding that property ownership isn't ethical to then going into stores and stealing their goods?
Perhaps, though I doubt you'd win. The 'good' thing about copying is that it leaves the original intact, so you don't even need to take anything.
Real property rights are fundamental, and copyright infringes upon those.
Stealing what? Their property is not involved at all. You're not even using a website (or something such as that) that they own to obtain the copies; someone is voluntarily using their own equipment to send you a copy. To say that this is somehow "stealing" is utterly absurd.
If the deal is "you can pay us money to play our game"
It would make slightly more sense if you're talking about using the 'illegitimate' copy to play online on their servers, but if that's not what you mean, then no "stealing" is involved.
regardless of weasel words.
Weasel words are at work here, but I'm not the one using them. It is known as "copyright infringement," even legally. Calling it "stealing" and other such things only confuses the matter and makes the ignorant even more ignorant.
Yes. Sometimes websites are censored (a violation of free speech/expression) because they supposedly help others infringe upon copyrights. And if I can't use my own resources to duplicate that book after I obtain my own copy or someone voluntarily lends me theirs, that is most definitely an infringement upon my private property rights.
If you don't accept it as ethical you have the option to refuse to participate in that market.
Well, that is an option, but there is also yet one more option: ignore copyright. Many people do this, and many simply don't care. You can claim that it is 'wrong,' but that is nothing more than an opinion.
It seems awfully like you are just finding a convenient justification to refuse to pay for something.
Mere personal attacks won't help you.
The point is that in many cases someone who is a mathematical genius is a complete idiot in many other aspects of life.
And almost everyone else possesses an utterly unimpressive amount of intelligence. I'll take the "idiot" who actually innovates.
It's theft of services.
What services? When someone else voluntarily lets me copy data from them (from their own equipment) to my private property, that does not involve the ones who originally assembled the data at all; they are simply unaffected, and they neither gain nor lose anything.
but let's not kid ourselves about what it is.
Indeed. It's copyright infringement.