You cannot blame the copyright infringers for the decisions that the 'artists' made, is my point.
So the ends justify the means?
No. Once the thing already exists, throwing it away is *useless*.
Of course there is evidence of the benefit. Vast amounts of works are created and shared in our society that were possible because of copyright-backed economics.
You can't assume that it's *because* of our system. Let me quote my post, because you failed to answer in any meaningful way and devolved into meaningless speculation: "Furthermore, you have *zero* proof that copyright is actually beneficial. To know that it's beneficial, you'd have to be able to peer into an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and our society is otherwise entirely the same. Comparing us to older societies without copyright is nonsensical because they were different in a myriad of other fundamental ways. So, where is your scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that copyright is beneficial? Since it is you defending laws that infringe upon people's liberties--and by default, laws restricting people don't exist--the burden of proof is on you and your entitled friends."
Scientific evidence you've presented: None.
Says who?
It seems you fail to understand the free market and real property law. By default, no one owns anything, so it's nonsensical to say that the world belongs to us all.
You can't justify imaginary property; it simply can't be done. Imaginary property and physical property are absolutely different, and if you can't see that, you're insane. I've already explained why, but you didn't bother to respond to that, so neither will I.
Are you prepared to say that necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest and pedophilia are not bad?
Absolutely.
No?
What's the point of asking a question if you're just going to answer it for them yourself? Why not just make the entire conversation take place in your own little imagination?
Then, shut the fuck up, moral relativist.
You use the term "moral relativist" like it's a bad thing. You must believe in magical moral fairies.
Sure, and they made that choice when the rules said ripping them off and not paying them was illegal. You can't assume they would have made the same choice under other conditions.
That is *irrelevant*. They made the decision on their own, and the people who infringed upon their copyright had nothing to do with it. They inflicted no damage.
If you don't like that part of the economy, you're welcome to spend your life enjoying only things that weren't supported by this kind of immoral and disgusting work.
What good would it do to toss aside all the benefits that you think came along thanks to copyright? That would be as dumb as rejecting a cure for cancer that was created by sacrificing babies after the deed had already taken place. That is, that would be irrational, but that's exactly what you are.
Furthermore, you have *zero* proof that copyright is actually beneficial. To know that it's beneficial, you'd have to be able to peer into an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and our society is otherwise entirely the same. Comparing us to older societies without copyright is nonsensical because they were different in a myriad of other fundamental ways. So, where is your scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that copyright is beneficial? Since it is you defending laws that infringe upon people's liberties--and by default, laws restricting people don't exist--the burden of proof is on you and your entitled friends.
But even if it is beneficial, it would still be intolerable because it infringes upon *real* private property rights and free speech rights. Censorship is, as always, absolutely intolerable, and copyright often employs it as a method of enforcement.
Ultimately, any kind of property, whether physical or intellectual, is just an artificial concept that we as a society choose to recognise and protect because we've concluded that life is better in some way if we do so.
*Real* property is physical and can be used without infringing upon other people's property rights. The problem with imaginary property is that it tries to claim ownership of the bits on my hardware, and that is intolerable, immoral and disgusting.
You just only seem to like that philosophy when it's to your advantage.
Just like people who believe they should be considered entitled to monopolies maintained by government thugs that infringe upon private property and free speech rights and subvert the free market. Such entitlement!
Sure it is. Whether rape occurred should be determined on an individual basis. The problem is that you're so emotional, irrational, and relying on "protect the children" instincts that you can't see that this is not how our justice system works in a grand majority of other cases. Not really a surprise.
Again, the real question is, what are you "for the children" people doing on Slashdot?
Of course, because the cost of creating knowledge works is entirely the near-zero marginal cost of distribution and not dominated by the sometimes multi-million dollar sunk costs of production
The people who copy the data have *nothing to do with that*. The 'artists' *chose* to spend that money, and no one else.
Learn some basic economics
Maybe you should learn some things about the free market, and learn how copyright is anti-free market. Your precious little government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon private property and free speech rights are immoral and disgusting. If you can't find a workable business model without ordering government thugs to prevent people from distributing certain data, you deserve to go out of business, and no amount of ad hominem attacks ("You'd believe differently if you were in a different situation!", etc.) directed at me will change that simple fact.
If they try to subvert justice so they can make it easier to enforce their copyrights (like with DMCA takedowns, where courts don't need to be involved), then those people are immoral, and it's perfectly fair to criticize them. The "practical" should never override justice. If they can't enforce copyright in a "practical way," then they should find a new business model, whatever that may be.
Sure, why not? Most people just have a knee-jerk reaction against these things because they're irrational and despise individual liberties. At this point, I do not believe that you're any different, which leads me to question why you're on Slashdot.
Your post didn't have any actual reasons to justify your statements, unlike his. The question was whether religion does good, and whether it keeps sociopaths from doing Bad Things.
So you want to ban one group while empowering another? hypocrite much??
It doesn't look like he wants to ban anything. Read the post he replied to and then read his reply to see the context.
In any case, that wouldn't be hypocrisy (a word that has pretty much lost its meaning); it would be more like a double standard, if anything. Hypocrisy is about direct contradictions.
Well, I don't accept the existence of Santa Claus, invisible magical unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, and any number of other things. I guess I'm not "open minded." Hey, maybe I'm not! But I'd say it's be pretty stupid to not be closed-minded about these things. Why would I believe completely ridiculous claims when there is no evidence (ignorance does not qualify as evidence) that they are true? Why would I even entertain the idea for more than a second? I maintain that the probability that a god exists is extremely, laughably small, based on current knowledge.
Also, many claim to be agnostic atheists, so there's that.
Oh, absolutely. The freedom to be part of whatever religion you want and believe what you want is the same as having the freedom to do whatever you want in the name of your religion!
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they did. Laws don't make themselves.
You cannot blame the copyright infringers for the decisions that the 'artists' made, is my point.
So the ends justify the means?
No. Once the thing already exists, throwing it away is *useless*.
Of course there is evidence of the benefit. Vast amounts of works are created and shared in our society that were possible because of copyright-backed economics.
You can't assume that it's *because* of our system. Let me quote my post, because you failed to answer in any meaningful way and devolved into meaningless speculation: "Furthermore, you have *zero* proof that copyright is actually beneficial. To know that it's beneficial, you'd have to be able to peer into an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and our society is otherwise entirely the same. Comparing us to older societies without copyright is nonsensical because they were different in a myriad of other fundamental ways. So, where is your scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that copyright is beneficial? Since it is you defending laws that infringe upon people's liberties--and by default, laws restricting people don't exist--the burden of proof is on you and your entitled friends."
Scientific evidence you've presented: None.
Says who?
It seems you fail to understand the free market and real property law. By default, no one owns anything, so it's nonsensical to say that the world belongs to us all.
You can't justify imaginary property; it simply can't be done. Imaginary property and physical property are absolutely different, and if you can't see that, you're insane. I've already explained why, but you didn't bother to respond to that, so neither will I.
The police doing the same under warrant to a suspected criminal probably isn't.
Incorrect. It is still an invasion of privacy; it's just a legal invasion of privacy.
Are you prepared to say that necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest and pedophilia are not bad?
Absolutely.
No?
What's the point of asking a question if you're just going to answer it for them yourself? Why not just make the entire conversation take place in your own little imagination?
Then, shut the fuck up, moral relativist.
You use the term "moral relativist" like it's a bad thing. You must believe in magical moral fairies.
Sure, and they made that choice when the rules said ripping them off and not paying them was illegal. You can't assume they would have made the same choice under other conditions.
That is *irrelevant*. They made the decision on their own, and the people who infringed upon their copyright had nothing to do with it. They inflicted no damage.
If you don't like that part of the economy, you're welcome to spend your life enjoying only things that weren't supported by this kind of immoral and disgusting work.
What good would it do to toss aside all the benefits that you think came along thanks to copyright? That would be as dumb as rejecting a cure for cancer that was created by sacrificing babies after the deed had already taken place. That is, that would be irrational, but that's exactly what you are.
Furthermore, you have *zero* proof that copyright is actually beneficial. To know that it's beneficial, you'd have to be able to peer into an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and our society is otherwise entirely the same. Comparing us to older societies without copyright is nonsensical because they were different in a myriad of other fundamental ways. So, where is your scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that copyright is beneficial? Since it is you defending laws that infringe upon people's liberties--and by default, laws restricting people don't exist--the burden of proof is on you and your entitled friends.
But even if it is beneficial, it would still be intolerable because it infringes upon *real* private property rights and free speech rights. Censorship is, as always, absolutely intolerable, and copyright often employs it as a method of enforcement.
Ultimately, any kind of property, whether physical or intellectual, is just an artificial concept that we as a society choose to recognise and protect because we've concluded that life is better in some way if we do so.
*Real* property is physical and can be used without infringing upon other people's property rights. The problem with imaginary property is that it tries to claim ownership of the bits on my hardware, and that is intolerable, immoral and disgusting.
You just only seem to like that philosophy when it's to your advantage.
Just like people who believe they should be considered entitled to monopolies maintained by government thugs that infringe upon private property and free speech rights and subvert the free market. Such entitlement!
Fucking children is not about personal liberties.
Sure it is. Whether rape occurred should be determined on an individual basis. The problem is that you're so emotional, irrational, and relying on "protect the children" instincts that you can't see that this is not how our justice system works in a grand majority of other cases. Not really a surprise.
Again, the real question is, what are you "for the children" people doing on Slashdot?
Of course, because the cost of creating knowledge works is entirely the near-zero marginal cost of distribution and not dominated by the sometimes multi-million dollar sunk costs of production
The people who copy the data have *nothing to do with that*. The 'artists' *chose* to spend that money, and no one else.
Learn some basic economics
Maybe you should learn some things about the free market, and learn how copyright is anti-free market. Your precious little government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon private property and free speech rights are immoral and disgusting. If you can't find a workable business model without ordering government thugs to prevent people from distributing certain data, you deserve to go out of business, and no amount of ad hominem attacks ("You'd believe differently if you were in a different situation!", etc.) directed at me will change that simple fact.
If they try to subvert justice so they can make it easier to enforce their copyrights (like with DMCA takedowns, where courts don't need to be involved), then those people are immoral, and it's perfectly fair to criticize them. The "practical" should never override justice. If they can't enforce copyright in a "practical way," then they should find a new business model, whatever that may be.
GEMA is the bad guy, along with copyright itself.
Sure, why not? Most people just have a knee-jerk reaction against these things because they're irrational and despise individual liberties. At this point, I do not believe that you're any different, which leads me to question why you're on Slashdot.
His opinions on those things are a lot more insightful and a lot less emotion-driven than most people's half-baked, freedom-hating opinions.
See how easy that is?
Your post didn't have any actual reasons to justify your statements, unlike his. The question was whether religion does good, and whether it keeps sociopaths from doing Bad Things.
So you want to ban one group while empowering another? hypocrite much??
It doesn't look like he wants to ban anything. Read the post he replied to and then read his reply to see the context.
In any case, that wouldn't be hypocrisy (a word that has pretty much lost its meaning); it would be more like a double standard, if anything. Hypocrisy is about direct contradictions.
So you're really in support of all those cases?
If it's just speech, I believe government thugs should stay out of it. Period.
I actually didn't assume you were talking about me.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
Well, you sure debunked all of his arguments. Good work!
Firstly you apparently cannot read, I said MANY, not all
Read my post more carefully. I'm saying that it's perfectly okay for atheists to be 'closed-minded' when it comes to such things, and explained why.
Unless you were just replying to my final sentence.
Well, I don't accept the existence of Santa Claus, invisible magical unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, and any number of other things. I guess I'm not "open minded." Hey, maybe I'm not! But I'd say it's be pretty stupid to not be closed-minded about these things. Why would I believe completely ridiculous claims when there is no evidence (ignorance does not qualify as evidence) that they are true? Why would I even entertain the idea for more than a second? I maintain that the probability that a god exists is extremely, laughably small, based on current knowledge.
Also, many claim to be agnostic atheists, so there's that.
Oh, absolutely. The freedom to be part of whatever religion you want and believe what you want is the same as having the freedom to do whatever you want in the name of your religion!
Religion doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of keeping people from doing Bad Things, so I somewhat doubt what you're saying.
but it's the fear of Hell that can keep a sociopath in line.
Where is your evidence of this?
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
What are you trying to do here? You're not going to convince me of anything, as I believe in absolute free speech.
In any case, let's talk about what's inside the deepest reaches of your bare undies...
Land of the free, home of the brave.
Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way.
You'll find that I have a mind of my own and am not a slave to legal traditions.
I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them
Since when is giving money to someone speech? I don't consider it so. Just asking someone to murder someone would be speech, though.
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Yes. The murderer is at fault.