I'm trying to grasp how you justify to yourself that copyright is at all ethical? Or do you think that government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon real property rights and free speech rights are ethical? Talk about entitlement.
Do they, now? Are you sure? Where did you get this information?
And even if it's true, so what? Many people believing something does not make it true.
but it has a pretty strong case
The fact that it has been around for a while (and used to infringe upon free speech rights and private property rights) does not mean it has a strong case; it doesn't, and indeed, there's not even any proof that it's beneficial.
but what you have stolen is the creator's right to choose how, when, and where to publicize his work.
Copyright isn't even a right, but a privilege; rights do not vanish with time, as copyright does. And if you stole that privilege from someone else, then you'd possess it, which would give you the privilege to be the only one legally able to distribute the work. It makes no sense to say anything was stolen.
The Framers understood the need for a balance between the rights of authors and consumers.
How could they understood that there is a need for a balance when there is (and was) no proof that there is a need for a balance? There is no actual proof that copyright is effective; most copyright proponents simply spew forth blind speculation about what society would be like without copyright. And since copyright infringes upon people's right to free speech and private property rights, it shouldn't be allowed even if it turns out that it's beneficial.
You on the other hand classify a whole sets of different people, at different levels of government (local, district, federal, SCOTUS) as thugs.
Maybe you should research a bit of history; it's not hard to reach that conclusion.
I disagree with you, so you think I'm clueless. You disagree with me, so I think you're clueless. Funny how that works, isn't it?
You're not thinking about it correctly.
Really? They'd die whether or not they were put in prison; time kills everyone, and it's not the fault of prison or the government. Equating a death from old age to killing someone is preposterous to begin with.
End result is C) and D) are really the same thing.
I don't think so. In addition to what I said above, there is the fact that the prisoner may die sooner with the death penalty than without.
You get automatic appeals that you don't get with life.
That's an indication that the legal system may need some fixing, not that the death penalty is a good solution.
I don't think you can rationalize voting for evil. It's unlikely that they'll win (partly due to the fact that people keep voting for evil), but you'll send a message. At any rate, giving up is not the solution to anything... unless you want to maintain the status quo in perpetuity.
People who vote for evil are either unintelligent or ignorant; mostly the former.
All of your posts are immediately recognizable even without reading your username. Don't the government's boots have enough of your filthy saliva on them? It's just appalling.
The gist of the Tories in England and American Democrats, in the mid 2010's.
Take a look at how many in congress voted for the Patriot Act the first time around; nearly everyone, including those on the Republican side. Both parties are hopelessly corrupt.
Lots of people claim outrageous things all of the time.
And if you can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, you may be unintelligent. The whole thing about spying on nearly everyone's communications was so obvious it's not even funny, even if all the details weren't so obvious; most people are just imbeciles.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to grasp how you justify to yourself that copyright is at all ethical? Or do you think that government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon real property rights and free speech rights are ethical? Talk about entitlement.
Most people do.
Do they, now? Are you sure? Where did you get this information?
And even if it's true, so what? Many people believing something does not make it true.
but it has a pretty strong case
The fact that it has been around for a while (and used to infringe upon free speech rights and private property rights) does not mean it has a strong case; it doesn't, and indeed, there's not even any proof that it's beneficial.
You obtained a non-free product, good, or service that you didn't pay for.
Period.
That is theft.
Period.
It's copyright infringement, not theft. Even the law does not agree with you.
but what you have stolen is the creator's right to choose how, when, and where to publicize his work.
Copyright isn't even a right, but a privilege; rights do not vanish with time, as copyright does. And if you stole that privilege from someone else, then you'd possess it, which would give you the privilege to be the only one legally able to distribute the work. It makes no sense to say anything was stolen.
The only DRM I'd say works is Steam DRM
DRM is DRM. Accept no restrictions.
The Framers understood the need for a balance between the rights of authors and consumers.
How could they understood that there is a need for a balance when there is (and was) no proof that there is a need for a balance? There is no actual proof that copyright is effective; most copyright proponents simply spew forth blind speculation about what society would be like without copyright. And since copyright infringes upon people's right to free speech and private property rights, it shouldn't be allowed even if it turns out that it's beneficial.
Um, they are.
Not morally, they're not.
[Nonsensical reply that doesn't make any sense.]
They've always been around. They're the ones who believe they're entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas.
That's strange, because I haven't bought any EA games, and yet your post seems to be referring to me.
I can't even believe my snap...! What do you say we get this done...?
Somethin' just licked its bare chops, and it wasn't ser Timothy Scrump!
What is this... secret power!?
I never thought it possible...
Heher heh!
I honestly can't believe it...
Wow! Such a thing!
You on the other hand classify a whole sets of different people, at different levels of government (local, district, federal, SCOTUS) as thugs.
Maybe you should research a bit of history; it's not hard to reach that conclusion.
I disagree with you, so you think I'm clueless. You disagree with me, so I think you're clueless. Funny how that works, isn't it?
You're not thinking about it correctly.
Really? They'd die whether or not they were put in prison; time kills everyone, and it's not the fault of prison or the government. Equating a death from old age to killing someone is preposterous to begin with.
End result is C) and D) are really the same thing.
I don't think so. In addition to what I said above, there is the fact that the prisoner may die sooner with the death penalty than without.
You get automatic appeals that you don't get with life.
That's an indication that the legal system may need some fixing, not that the death penalty is a good solution.
If you did, then you should be executed.
I also disagree with that.
I know, you still don't get it? Think about it.
I know, you still don't get it? Think about it.
While I fully realize that it would be both wrong
Illegal perhaps, but there's nothing wrong about it.
Denying that it's not rational also doesn't make it so.
More like a pragmatist
I don't think you can rationalize voting for evil. It's unlikely that they'll win (partly due to the fact that people keep voting for evil), but you'll send a message. At any rate, giving up is not the solution to anything... unless you want to maintain the status quo in perpetuity.
People who vote for evil are either unintelligent or ignorant; mostly the former.
All of your posts are immediately recognizable even without reading your username. Don't the government's boots have enough of your filthy saliva on them? It's just appalling.
The gist of the Tories in England and American Democrats, in the mid 2010's.
Take a look at how many in congress voted for the Patriot Act the first time around; nearly everyone, including those on the Republican side. Both parties are hopelessly corrupt.
Lots of people claim outrageous things all of the time.
And if you can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, you may be unintelligent. The whole thing about spying on nearly everyone's communications was so obvious it's not even funny, even if all the details weren't so obvious; most people are just imbeciles.
Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities weren't illegal in the first place.
Ridiculous. Of course it would; it is unconstitutional, creepy, and morally wrong.
Furthermore, the law could change at any time, and even the constitution can be ignored/amended (mostly ignored).