Just like the courts haven't been doing their jobs. That doesn't stop people from mindlessly worshiping scumbags who happen to be judges, though, and treating their opinions like gospel.
What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? A mere false dilemma. You don't have to like Obama (or be his god damn supporter) just because you think he's slightly better than the other scumbags. Disliking all of them is a choice. Third parties are also a choice, and can send a message to the scumbags in the main parties.
What high ground? He took the job with the intent to leak mountains of classified information.
What difference does that make? None. He still revealed the government's immoral and unconstitutional activities.
(and there's no proof that he even looked at what he leaked before handing it over to reporters, particularly considering some of the legitimate things that have come out).
Snowden released a lot of material that has nothing to do with eavesdropping on US citizens, and that's what changes him from a whistleblower to a traitor.
No, it's not. As a US citizen, I believe people in other countries have a right to privacy. If you weren't a selfish and nationalistic, you'd believe so, too. Innocent people simply shouldn't be getting spied on; especially not allies. And no, the fact that "Everyone is doing it!" doesn't make it okay.
I'm thankful that Snowden revealed the specifics of the government's immoral activities to the public at large.
Right. It's not some conspiracy; it's simple human greed and corruption. The two parties are basically one party; they hardly differ on anything that truly matters.
I don't think he was talking about the Patriot Act extension.
Look back in 2001 and see how bipartisan it was. The two parties knew they could take advantage of people's fear and irrationality at the time, so they pushed it through in a bipartisan effort. Those are their true colors. What you see today is merely a reaction to more voters waking up and realizing that the Patriot Act sucks, so now politicians are pretending to care.
His point is that he's a warmonger with no principles whatsoever. The USA's reputation? The USA's ability to spy on its 'allies'? I hope it did damage them, because it should.
But you know how when someone insults the soldier who defended that person's right to throw that insult?
Soldiers don't necessarily defend our rights. Some support things such as the TSA, the NSA, free speech zones, etc. Furthermore, in order to defend us, a clearly identifiable country needs to attack us. No such thing has happened for a very long time, so soldiers can hardly be said to be defending our rights in any meaningful sense.
but he wants to deny others the freedom to profit from their intellectual property efforts.
The sort of property that isn't really property, you mean? Yeah, that thing.
But no, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't tell anyone that software must be free as in price, or that you must make software for free. You can certainly try to make money.
Unfortunately, we're expected to abide by the laws these greedy pieces of trash bribe our government to create. Did you forget what this very article is about? SOPA? PIPA? The DMCA?
So go back to acting like an entitled little fuck.
Oh, and acting as if you can bribe the government to create draconian laws so that your government-enforced monopoly over ideas can be better protected isn't entitled at all! It's actually one of the most entitled things I've ever seen.
Anyone with a brain would want to see these evil companies squirm.
What the fuck do you think gives you the right to take the fruits of another's labors?
Exactly. What the fuck do you think gives you the right to take the fruits of another's labors (tax dollars) to enforce your unjust little monopolies?
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
I don't have to assume anything.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
I don't have to assume anything.
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
For people to respond to this in such a way that their response suggests that they think recording a movie screen is a heinous crime and we can't even allow the mere possibility of it happening without calling the FBI does suggest gullibility and brainwashing.
Consider for a moment your standard, run of the mill credit report that is easily obtainable by just about anybody.
The fact that some people sacrifice some of their privacy (Not everyone uses credit cards, believe it or not. I pay with cash as often as possible.) to corporations doesn't mean that they want additional information in the hands of the government. They are not hypocritical for being outraged.
Where is the outrage? Where is the oversight?
Maybe people do want oversight and regulations on both? That is entirely possible.
I personally don't give a shit if the NSA knows who I called.
Then you're naive and you're part of the problem. The government isn't--and never will be--made up of perfect angels. Hundreds of millions of people throughout history have been abused by governments, and you can damn well be certain that they'll abuse this data in whatever ways they say fit. There are civil rights organizations fighting to stop this at the moment, and you'd do well to support them.
And you may not care if the NSA knows who you called, but *I* do. Don't sacrifice my privacy because you don't care. That's pretty damn selfish.
We conceded privacy for the sake of convenience a long, long time ago.
Who is this "we"? It also varies by degree.
And what does it have to do with government surveillance? Nothing. The government should not be assuming you want all this data in their hands just because you surrender some to certain corporations.
No actually the fact that it is possible to use private information to harm typical citizens is a sign that we need to clean up out legal and social system because we obviously don't actually like our laws and customs.
It will *always* be possible, because it is *always* possible for the government to be corrupt. It doesn't matter how much you change your legal and social systems; human corruption will always be with us.
Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue with the government watching over us.
Nonsense. If your government is made up of imperfect humans--and all of them are, obviously--then it is a serious issue when the government collects private information of this nature on almost all of its citizens. The fact that some people have no problem with it just means they're naive. "It can't happen here!" Oh, yes it can. Your government is just as human as anyone else's. If you're doing something the government doesn't like, and they have this type of surveillance, then you will likely become a target, and be in trouble.
If you're talking about the labor they put into it, then that's already been "spent." No one can take it from them. And since that was their own choice and no one else's, it has nothing to do with the people sharing files.
And the laws involving slavery were changed. Feel free to go for it yourself. Aside from that what you "believe" has little to do with the reality of the situation.
What I believe is relevant because I'm speaking of morality. As for changing laws, well... people are trying. I vote for candidates that I feel would represent me (no democrats or republicans) and write to my so-called "representatives" about issues like these often. I join protests when possible. I try to remind people of freedom. Sadly, it's probably not enough.
Again, if the masses were that set against it the system would change.
Not if they're preoccupied with 50,000 other issues that the One Party distracts them with. It's easy to divide and conquer when there are only two parties. All issues that the majority doesn't think are "top priority" get ignored and the One Party can do practically anything it wants with regard to those issues.
I'm just as much if not more so against the two party lie but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to me
I recognize reality and that the law applies to me. I just don't respect the law.
It still doesn't change the fact of the matter. I pointed it out that you pointed it out because at least you are grounded in the reality of what it is from a legal and social standpoint.
I don't see why you bother with this. I know that copyright exists and people don't care about freedom at the moment. You don't need to keep pointing it out. I'm saying it's wrong. Saying that it exists misses the point and is completely useless.
Yes, they are.
Saying that a certain market should be free is not a fallacy, which was my intention. Not specifying how censorship is at work is also not fallacious.
No, the burden is on you as the laws in question are already in place.
Wrong. The onus of proof does not suddenly change hands just because someone forces policies and laws on people. The burden of proof is still on the people infringing upon people's rights and advocating that these policies/laws remain in place. I'm not talking about the legal onus of proof, but principle. The law is often illogical.
There is overhead involved in music production. If you're using the product without putting money up to support that production then you are, indeed, taking something without paying for it. It may not be physical but it still is "something."
So you're not taking anything. Potential money is not tangible, and you can't lose it; you never had it. Furthermore, it was never yours.
Yes. As a society we have agreed that there is a limited right to monopoly over content. It's called copyright.
Just like, at one point, society allowed slavery. I disagree with society, and society can be wrong. I believe it's wrong in this case. All this demonstrates is that people don't actually care about rights, free speech, or principles; that's sad, and especially so in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free.
The fact that copyright was allowed to be extended (at least in the USA) shows that the masses have nothing against this monopoly power.
Nonsense. I know that many people want at least some form of copyright, but not in the form it's in today. It's just that we have a two-party system and people keep voting for the lesser of two evils, but that does not mean they agree with these 'representatives' on all issues.
Even you pointed out that it is a monopoly situation.
I pointed it out because I disagree with it with the monopoly situation, obviously.
And presenting fallacies like free markets and uncited censorship
Neither of which are fallacies. The censorship comes from the enforcement of copyright. What happens when a website facilitates copyright infringement or infringes upon copyright itself? As we've seen... the 'solution' is often censorship.
There isn't even any proof that copyrights/patents are effective. Even if they were, I'd still be 100% opposed to them, but there isn't any. All you people do is speculate about what the world would be like without them, and that's not proof in any sense of the word. Since you're limiting rights here and proposing policies/laws, the burden of proof is on you. Sadly, our system doesn't care about proof, as is apparent to anyone who's been paying attention.
Thankfully, even if copyright remains, the government will never truly be able to stop any of it. Hopefully it'll all collapse at some point.
It would be problematic if people were actually taking anything, but that's not the case.
Maybe the real problem is that people (and the government would agree, sadly) feel that they're entitled to monopolies over ideas and procedures that are enforced by the government. Of course, this leads to censorship and the infringement of people's real private property rights, so these monopolies are intolerable.
The bottom line is that no price beats free.
In a free market, it's up to you to figure out how to profit. If you can't do that, then too bad for you.
I'd love to see these people who try to justify being a thief at least put some skin in the game so when their content is ripped off they'll have a taste of what they're dishing out.
Your ad hominems are worthless and don't serve to debunk any arguments. "You'd agree with X if you were in situation Y!" is not a logical argument.
It's generally accepted that withholding rights from some is required to ensure public safety or other collective benefit.
In some cases, I feel that infringing upon certain rights is unacceptable no matter what. Copyrights and patents will always be absolutely disgusting to me because of their effect of private property, and copyright's effect on freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the courts haven't been doing their jobs. That doesn't stop people from mindlessly worshiping scumbags who happen to be judges, though, and treating their opinions like gospel.
I consider myself nominally an Obama supporter
Wow.
(like what other choices do we really have?)
What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? A mere false dilemma. You don't have to like Obama (or be his god damn supporter) just because you think he's slightly better than the other scumbags. Disliking all of them is a choice. Third parties are also a choice, and can send a message to the scumbags in the main parties.
You have choices; you just choose to ignore them.
What high ground? He took the job with the intent to leak mountains of classified information.
What difference does that make? None. He still revealed the government's immoral and unconstitutional activities.
(and there's no proof that he even looked at what he leaked before handing it over to reporters, particularly considering some of the legitimate things that have come out).
And no proof he didn't, you child molester, you.
The only traitors here are those in the government, not messengers who inform the public of the government's misdeeds or unconstitutional activities.
Snowden released a lot of material that has nothing to do with eavesdropping on US citizens, and that's what changes him from a whistleblower to a traitor.
No, it's not. As a US citizen, I believe people in other countries have a right to privacy. If you weren't a selfish and nationalistic, you'd believe so, too. Innocent people simply shouldn't be getting spied on; especially not allies. And no, the fact that "Everyone is doing it!" doesn't make it okay.
I'm thankful that Snowden revealed the specifics of the government's immoral activities to the public at large.
Right. It's not some conspiracy; it's simple human greed and corruption. The two parties are basically one party; they hardly differ on anything that truly matters.
Sorry, but the Patriot Act extension in 2011
I don't think he was talking about the Patriot Act extension.
Look back in 2001 and see how bipartisan it was. The two parties knew they could take advantage of people's fear and irrationality at the time, so they pushed it through in a bipartisan effort. Those are their true colors. What you see today is merely a reaction to more voters waking up and realizing that the Patriot Act sucks, so now politicians are pretending to care.
"1 != 2"
"No true Scotsman!"
Not every statement claiming that one thing is not equivalent to another is a no true Scotsman fallacy; not even close.
His point is that he's a warmonger with no principles whatsoever. The USA's reputation? The USA's ability to spy on its 'allies'? I hope it did damage them, because it should.
While it does list some restrictions, it's more of a whitelist. Anything the constitution doesn't say the government can do, it can't do.
But you know how when someone insults the soldier who defended that person's right to throw that insult?
Soldiers don't necessarily defend our rights. Some support things such as the TSA, the NSA, free speech zones, etc. Furthermore, in order to defend us, a clearly identifiable country needs to attack us. No such thing has happened for a very long time, so soldiers can hardly be said to be defending our rights in any meaningful sense.
Preemptive wars are not wars of defense.
From your other post:
I was tired of people in my family telling me that 1) I couldn't have an opinion because I had not been there
Unfortunately, your family seems a bit brain dead if they seriously put forth such a blatant fallacy.
And let's not try to talk about my patriotism. I enlisted in the Army Infantry and deployed to Iraq in 2009.
That has little to do with patriotism; you only feed the government warmongers. Joining during Iraq was a bad call, anyway.
They don't even need to have a majority; voting for third parties can send a message.
but he wants to deny others the freedom to profit from their intellectual property efforts.
The sort of property that isn't really property, you mean? Yeah, that thing.
But no, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't tell anyone that software must be free as in price, or that you must make software for free. You can certainly try to make money.
You don't have to consume their product, bitch.
Unfortunately, we're expected to abide by the laws these greedy pieces of trash bribe our government to create. Did you forget what this very article is about? SOPA? PIPA? The DMCA?
So go back to acting like an entitled little fuck.
Oh, and acting as if you can bribe the government to create draconian laws so that your government-enforced monopoly over ideas can be better protected isn't entitled at all! It's actually one of the most entitled things I've ever seen.
Anyone with a brain would want to see these evil companies squirm.
What the fuck do you think gives you the right to take the fruits of another's labors?
Exactly. What the fuck do you think gives you the right to take the fruits of another's labors (tax dollars) to enforce your unjust little monopolies?
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
I don't have to assume anything.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
I don't have to assume anything.
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
For people to respond to this in such a way that their response suggests that they think recording a movie screen is a heinous crime and we can't even allow the mere possibility of it happening without calling the FBI does suggest gullibility and brainwashing.
Consider for a moment your standard, run of the mill credit report that is easily obtainable by just about anybody.
The fact that some people sacrifice some of their privacy (Not everyone uses credit cards, believe it or not. I pay with cash as often as possible.) to corporations doesn't mean that they want additional information in the hands of the government. They are not hypocritical for being outraged.
Where is the outrage? Where is the oversight?
Maybe people do want oversight and regulations on both? That is entirely possible.
I personally don't give a shit if the NSA knows who I called.
Then you're naive and you're part of the problem. The government isn't--and never will be--made up of perfect angels. Hundreds of millions of people throughout history have been abused by governments, and you can damn well be certain that they'll abuse this data in whatever ways they say fit. There are civil rights organizations fighting to stop this at the moment, and you'd do well to support them.
And you may not care if the NSA knows who you called, but *I* do. Don't sacrifice my privacy because you don't care. That's pretty damn selfish.
We conceded privacy for the sake of convenience a long, long time ago.
Who is this "we"? It also varies by degree.
And what does it have to do with government surveillance? Nothing. The government should not be assuming you want all this data in their hands just because you surrender some to certain corporations.
No actually the fact that it is possible to use private information to harm typical citizens is a sign that we need to clean up out legal and social system because we obviously don't actually like our laws and customs.
It will *always* be possible, because it is *always* possible for the government to be corrupt. It doesn't matter how much you change your legal and social systems; human corruption will always be with us.
Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue with the government watching over us.
Nonsense. If your government is made up of imperfect humans--and all of them are, obviously--then it is a serious issue when the government collects private information of this nature on almost all of its citizens. The fact that some people have no problem with it just means they're naive. "It can't happen here!" Oh, yes it can. Your government is just as human as anyone else's. If you're doing something the government doesn't like, and they have this type of surveillance, then you will likely become a target, and be in trouble.
Privacy is always relevant.
It's not potential money. It's labor.
If you're talking about the labor they put into it, then that's already been "spent." No one can take it from them. And since that was their own choice and no one else's, it has nothing to do with the people sharing files.
And the laws involving slavery were changed. Feel free to go for it yourself. Aside from that what you "believe" has little to do with the reality of the situation.
What I believe is relevant because I'm speaking of morality. As for changing laws, well... people are trying. I vote for candidates that I feel would represent me (no democrats or republicans) and write to my so-called "representatives" about issues like these often. I join protests when possible. I try to remind people of freedom. Sadly, it's probably not enough.
Again, if the masses were that set against it the system would change.
Not if they're preoccupied with 50,000 other issues that the One Party distracts them with. It's easy to divide and conquer when there are only two parties. All issues that the majority doesn't think are "top priority" get ignored and the One Party can do practically anything it wants with regard to those issues.
I'm just as much if not more so against the two party lie but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to me
I recognize reality and that the law applies to me. I just don't respect the law.
It still doesn't change the fact of the matter. I pointed it out that you pointed it out because at least you are grounded in the reality of what it is from a legal and social standpoint.
I don't see why you bother with this. I know that copyright exists and people don't care about freedom at the moment. You don't need to keep pointing it out. I'm saying it's wrong. Saying that it exists misses the point and is completely useless.
Yes, they are.
Saying that a certain market should be free is not a fallacy, which was my intention. Not specifying how censorship is at work is also not fallacious.
No, the burden is on you as the laws in question are already in place.
Wrong. The onus of proof does not suddenly change hands just because someone forces policies and laws on people. The burden of proof is still on the people infringing upon people's rights and advocating that these policies/laws remain in place. I'm not talking about the legal onus of proof, but principle. The law is often illogical.
There is overhead involved in music production. If you're using the product without putting money up to support that production then you are, indeed, taking something without paying for it. It may not be physical but it still is "something."
So you're not taking anything. Potential money is not tangible, and you can't lose it; you never had it. Furthermore, it was never yours.
Yes. As a society we have agreed that there is a limited right to monopoly over content. It's called copyright.
Just like, at one point, society allowed slavery. I disagree with society, and society can be wrong. I believe it's wrong in this case. All this demonstrates is that people don't actually care about rights, free speech, or principles; that's sad, and especially so in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free.
The fact that copyright was allowed to be extended (at least in the USA) shows that the masses have nothing against this monopoly power.
Nonsense. I know that many people want at least some form of copyright, but not in the form it's in today. It's just that we have a two-party system and people keep voting for the lesser of two evils, but that does not mean they agree with these 'representatives' on all issues.
Even you pointed out that it is a monopoly situation.
I pointed it out because I disagree with it with the monopoly situation, obviously.
And presenting fallacies like free markets and uncited censorship
Neither of which are fallacies. The censorship comes from the enforcement of copyright. What happens when a website facilitates copyright infringement or infringes upon copyright itself? As we've seen... the 'solution' is often censorship.
There isn't even any proof that copyrights/patents are effective. Even if they were, I'd still be 100% opposed to them, but there isn't any. All you people do is speculate about what the world would be like without them, and that's not proof in any sense of the word. Since you're limiting rights here and proposing policies/laws, the burden of proof is on you. Sadly, our system doesn't care about proof, as is apparent to anyone who's been paying attention.
Thankfully, even if copyright remains, the government will never truly be able to stop any of it. Hopefully it'll all collapse at some point.
that just taking it is a fine alternative.
It would be problematic if people were actually taking anything, but that's not the case.
Maybe the real problem is that people (and the government would agree, sadly) feel that they're entitled to monopolies over ideas and procedures that are enforced by the government. Of course, this leads to censorship and the infringement of people's real private property rights, so these monopolies are intolerable.
The bottom line is that no price beats free.
In a free market, it's up to you to figure out how to profit. If you can't do that, then too bad for you.
I'd love to see these people who try to justify being a thief at least put some skin in the game so when their content is ripped off they'll have a taste of what they're dishing out.
Your ad hominems are worthless and don't serve to debunk any arguments. "You'd agree with X if you were in situation Y!" is not a logical argument.
It's generally accepted that withholding rights from some is required to ensure public safety or other collective benefit.
In some cases, I feel that infringing upon certain rights is unacceptable no matter what. Copyrights and patents will always be absolutely disgusting to me because of their effect of private property, and copyright's effect on freedom of speech.