My solution would be to force them to go to court every single time. Is it "better"? I certainly think so, and you'll find that I'm no friend of copyright.
Actually, nobody can be legally obliged to remove anything without a court case. The issue here is safe harbor.
That basically amounts to the same thing. The DMCA is a bad law for having these strikes to begin with. Safe harbor should be given to websites with impunity.
Both should be a reason. The existence of false positives (and, as we've seen time and time again, these systems are as far from perfect as you can get) is but one of many reasons to oppose this.
(Now, I also value open source for some of its merits - long-term maintainabilitiy, the biggest among them. But that doesn't mean blind and exclusive faith, imho.)
I don't have blind faith, as I even accepted that it doesn't provide 100% security at all. However, I'm definitely not going to make the situation worse with proprietary software, and as I said, being able to look at the source is more important to me.
I consider the freedom to look at the source important in and of itself. And even if being able to look at the source doesn't stop 100% of all Bad Things, it's a hell of a lot better than dealing with binary blobs. Don't resort to the perfect solution fallacy.
I don't run proprietary software, period. I'm the only one who should decide if software is "harmful," and Valve certainly shouldn't decide that software I installed on my computer is harmful for me.
Of course, again, this is why I don't use proprietary junk to begin with.
You have no idea how their software works, as it's proprietary. Furthermore, the fact that you used the word "probably" says it all. You can't have absolute faith in any software, and certainly not if you can't see the source.
The real privacy violations are happening upstream, at the ISPs with the full support of numerous three letter agencies. I am more concerned about the NSA colluding with Microsoft than I am with Valve scanning my DNS cache for servers used to authenticate cheats.
X being worse than Y does not mean that Y isn't bad. All of these are real privacy violations, all of them are bad, and you really have no idea what this proprietary garbage is doing. Your logic is bad.
According to who? You? Some people don't care, so don't decide this for them. Bottom line is, server administrators should be allowed to decide what they want to put up with, not you.
From the sound of it, what he suggested should happen is exactly what already happens, anyway.
Why not just create a special steroid Olympics where the athletes are allowed steroid use?
I don't know. Why not?
There's a reason they don't design it that way in the first place.
How they designed it is irrelevant to how people want to use the application.
Then it should also be common knowledge that people should stay far away from their proprietary garbage. To do otherwise is to admit that one is profoundly ignorant.
So in other words, you tolerate it because you care more about the safety of your DRM-infested, proprietary games than you do about what these applications are actually doing. Such integrity.
The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled many times that the right freedom of speech stops where it harms others.
The first amendment says no such thing. As usual, the Supreme Court likes to make shit up, rather than just interpret the constitution; they did the same thing with the miller test.
Copyright and the laws that support it are there to stop economic harm.
You cannot be harmed if you 'lose' something you never had and was never yours. Potential profit is not yours and not something you can ever have, so there is no harm.
If you say that certain people deserve government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights, I say that you don't care about freedom. If someone can't figure out how to make money, they don't deserve to have government thugs create a monopoly for them. Let the free market sort this little 'problem' out.
The DMCA's counter-notice provisions clearly preserve free speech and journalism.
Wrong. The DMCA's disgusting notices give us a "guilty unless proven innocent" system. They should be forced to go to court before anyone can be legally obliged to remove anything, at the very least.
The only rational way to disagree with this is to assert that the First Amendment overrides and invalidates the Copyright Clause, and I challenge you to find a single shred of evidence that that was the intent of the authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights.
Intent is irrelevant. The constitution is what it is, and free speech trumps copyright. An amendment amends and changes the constitution, and the first comes after the copyright clause.
Copyright, to begin with, is an absolutely disgusting concept that infringes upon free speech and private property rights. There is also not any proof it's actually beneficial beyond completely baseless speculation, but that point is less important, as even if it weren't true, freedom is more important than safety.
What did he "lose," exactly? The debate? Well, what did he lose in the debate? Unless he switched positions, I don't think he can be said to have lost anything at all.
Name calling does not automatically make someone "lose," either; to say otherwise is in itself an ad hominem (of the fallacious variety).
Actually, that's wrong. It *can* be interpreted in other ways; I just don't think those interpretations are valid. The real point, though, is that some of the people who claim to support the second amendment (which I support) advocate violating it by regulating certain weaponry.
Reducto ad absurdum: you believe that prohibiting the populace from private possession of fusion bombs is unreasonable?
Yep. Amend the constitution if you don't like it. I would get behind such an amendment.
Note that I was specifically talking about people who interpret the 2nd in such a way that they consider it to mean that owning firearms and such is a right. If they accept it to apply to some modern weaponry (and most people do), why not all of it? They're essentially saying we should violate their version of the constitution, and I find that absolutely hypocritical.
but you seem to be completely ignoring that part of the 2nd anyhow...
At this point, in the courts, it's pretty well-established what the 2nd means, and owning modern weaponry is considered a right thanks to lots of precedent. Not that that means the judges are right, but that's how it is at the moment.
I would say that the answer is that it's not reasonable to do so, for exactly the reason you mentioned. If people don't like it, they should attempt to amend the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
My solution would be to force them to go to court every single time. Is it "better"? I certainly think so, and you'll find that I'm no friend of copyright.
Actually, nobody can be legally obliged to remove anything without a court case. The issue here is safe harbor.
That basically amounts to the same thing. The DMCA is a bad law for having these strikes to begin with. Safe harbor should be given to websites with impunity.
X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad. Great logic.
Both should be a reason. The existence of false positives (and, as we've seen time and time again, these systems are as far from perfect as you can get) is but one of many reasons to oppose this.
The fact that they didn't when they had the chance is a good indication that they're not planning to do so
That logic is utterly preposterous.
(Now, I also value open source for some of its merits - long-term maintainabilitiy, the biggest among them. But that doesn't mean blind and exclusive faith, imho.)
I don't have blind faith, as I even accepted that it doesn't provide 100% security at all. However, I'm definitely not going to make the situation worse with proprietary software, and as I said, being able to look at the source is more important to me.
I consider the freedom to look at the source important in and of itself. And even if being able to look at the source doesn't stop 100% of all Bad Things, it's a hell of a lot better than dealing with binary blobs. Don't resort to the perfect solution fallacy.
Secondly Cheaters really ruin it for everyone else.
"Well for one, I know a lot of gammers hate to hear it, IT IS JUST A GAME! If you don't like it don't play the game."
???
I don't run proprietary software, period. I'm the only one who should decide if software is "harmful," and Valve certainly shouldn't decide that software I installed on my computer is harmful for me.
Of course, again, this is why I don't use proprietary junk to begin with.
You have no idea how their software works, as it's proprietary. Furthermore, the fact that you used the word "probably" says it all. You can't have absolute faith in any software, and certainly not if you can't see the source.
So the addict speaks.
The real privacy violations are happening upstream, at the ISPs with the full support of numerous three letter agencies. I am more concerned about the NSA colluding with Microsoft than I am with Valve scanning my DNS cache for servers used to authenticate cheats.
X being worse than Y does not mean that Y isn't bad. All of these are real privacy violations, all of them are bad, and you really have no idea what this proprietary garbage is doing. Your logic is bad.
Because cheating is wrong?
According to who? You? Some people don't care, so don't decide this for them. Bottom line is, server administrators should be allowed to decide what they want to put up with, not you.
From the sound of it, what he suggested should happen is exactly what already happens, anyway.
Why not just create a special steroid Olympics where the athletes are allowed steroid use?
I don't know. Why not?
There's a reason they don't design it that way in the first place.
How they designed it is irrelevant to how people want to use the application.
everyone loses.
Only individuals can decide that for themselves.
Then it should also be common knowledge that people should stay far away from their proprietary garbage. To do otherwise is to admit that one is profoundly ignorant.
So in other words, you tolerate it because you care more about the safety of your DRM-infested, proprietary games than you do about what these applications are actually doing. Such integrity.
Or you, if they happen to falsely flag you as a cheater.
The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled many times that the right freedom of speech stops where it harms others.
The first amendment says no such thing. As usual, the Supreme Court likes to make shit up, rather than just interpret the constitution; they did the same thing with the miller test.
Copyright and the laws that support it are there to stop economic harm.
You cannot be harmed if you 'lose' something you never had and was never yours. Potential profit is not yours and not something you can ever have, so there is no harm.
If you say that certain people deserve government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights, I say that you don't care about freedom. If someone can't figure out how to make money, they don't deserve to have government thugs create a monopoly for them. Let the free market sort this little 'problem' out.
The DMCA's counter-notice provisions clearly preserve free speech and journalism.
Wrong. The DMCA's disgusting notices give us a "guilty unless proven innocent" system. They should be forced to go to court before anyone can be legally obliged to remove anything, at the very least.
The only rational way to disagree with this is to assert that the First Amendment overrides and invalidates the Copyright Clause, and I challenge you to find a single shred of evidence that that was the intent of the authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights.
Intent is irrelevant. The constitution is what it is, and free speech trumps copyright. An amendment amends and changes the constitution, and the first comes after the copyright clause.
Copyright, to begin with, is an absolutely disgusting concept that infringes upon free speech and private property rights. There is also not any proof it's actually beneficial beyond completely baseless speculation, but that point is less important, as even if it weren't true, freedom is more important than safety.
The real bad guy is the DMCA. Get rid of this DMCA takedown nonsense for good.
Free speech is far from just about politician debate; it's about every sort of speech, including opinions about 'trivial' matters.
What did he "lose," exactly? The debate? Well, what did he lose in the debate? Unless he switched positions, I don't think he can be said to have lost anything at all.
Name calling does not automatically make someone "lose," either; to say otherwise is in itself an ad hominem (of the fallacious variety).
Actually, that's wrong. It *can* be interpreted in other ways; I just don't think those interpretations are valid. The real point, though, is that some of the people who claim to support the second amendment (which I support) advocate violating it by regulating certain weaponry.
Whether it makes you an "asshole" or not is quite subjective. Some people (like cold fjord, for instance) quite deserve it for being complete morons.
Hate speech laws target tone, silencing whistleblowers targets content.
That's actually no different. Hate speech laws also target specific content.
Reducto ad absurdum: you believe that prohibiting the populace from private possession of fusion bombs is unreasonable?
Yep. Amend the constitution if you don't like it. I would get behind such an amendment.
Note that I was specifically talking about people who interpret the 2nd in such a way that they consider it to mean that owning firearms and such is a right. If they accept it to apply to some modern weaponry (and most people do), why not all of it? They're essentially saying we should violate their version of the constitution, and I find that absolutely hypocritical.
but you seem to be completely ignoring that part of the 2nd anyhow...
At this point, in the courts, it's pretty well-established what the 2nd means, and owning modern weaponry is considered a right thanks to lots of precedent. Not that that means the judges are right, but that's how it is at the moment.
I would say that the answer is that it's not reasonable to do so, for exactly the reason you mentioned. If people don't like it, they should attempt to amend the constitution.