I'm saying that you shouldn't put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested banning such speech.
Considering that primacy of personal freedoms and the a stance against most, if not all laws, are the hallmarks of anarchy I have no problem calling you an anarchist.
Then you misunderstand my position. You would find that I am in favor of many laws, just not ones that infringe upon freedoms I deem fundamental. That is far from anarchy, which is the complete absence of government, and not my goal.
Considering that the statements I have said align much more with the arch typical capitalist than communist I would say your label is way off.
I'd say getting government thugs to enforce monopolies over ideas is more like communism, at least when considering what some of people think communism is. The word "communist," much like the word "anarchist," seems to be used to describe people one doesn't like or disagrees with. I simply used it in that way.
By the way, not using labels is a sign of an anarchist.
Saying such things is the sign of a communist. I don't bother with labels, because I ultimately care about individual policies. I have no idea what people would use to label me with these days. The labels are a mere distraction.
No, I see balance between my personal freedoms and the personal freedoms of others.
There cannot be any balance with fundamental freedoms like free speech. Don't pretend that not having copyright is the same as having anarchy; it's not even close.
To me, they are both the same.
Then you are ignorant both of reality and the law (at least in the US). I don't care much about the law, obviously, but it's not even on your side there.
I notice how you responded to every statement except about the the one about how a copier will always have an economic advantage over the original producer of a product. That is the crux of the issue and you have no way of easily dismissing it.
I don't need to easily dismiss it; I already made it clear that if they can't find a way to profit, they don't deserve other people's money or government monopolies.
Listen, insect: I care about freedom, not safety. I don't care how much 'safety' you think copyright brings people, nor do I care about how much 'good' it does.
There is no way to profit from a book if one day after publishing someone else can sell the same book for little more than the cost of production.
You could get paid as you write it. You could crowd fund the book.
The reason I don't want to suggest ways to make money is because *I shouldn't have to*. That's up to *them*, not other people. Government-enforced monopolies are unjust and anti-free market.
Examples please. I have an idea that you may be confusing copyright enforcement with censorship.
You haven't noticed how websites are taken down or domain names are altered in an attempt to enforce copyright? Not at all? You're not paying attention.
But you seem to think people are entitled to other people's work which could be converted into money.
Entitled to it? As in, someone should be forced to give someone else their work? That is a mere straw man. Rather, I thin that if someone is able to distribute the information or copy it, they should be able to, not that anyone owes them anything. Note the difference.
By the way, in most countries copyright is a limited length monopoly.
In most countries, copyright lasts more than five decades, which can't be considered reasonably limited. But that is besides the point; copyright would be unjust even if it lasted one year.
Copying and selling someone else's work is not free speech..Free speech is saying what is in your mind not copying works of others.
Transmitting data is free speech. Hosting a website that allows others to do that is free speech. The content is irrelevant. Your post is mere data, as well.
If you were talking facts then perspective would not make a different but we are talking thoughts and beliefs.
It still doesn't make a difference, because it's an utterly irrelevant point.
And we have many laws to protect people from greed.
Apparently you missed my point. Authors (not "creators") aren't somehow righteous or automatically correct. They're no less self-serving or greedy that anyone else, so of course they'd defend their little monopolies.
Copyright is a way of protecting the creator from the greed of others.
While infringing upon people's free speech rights and real private property rights, as well as ensuring that the greed of these "creators" is satisfied to the detriment of everyone else's freedom.
Then why did you play the morality card in your first post?
Because it's what I believe, not what is objectively a fact.
I noticed you made a lot of unsubstantiated claims that copyright is a good thing and helps people. Care to prove that? In order to do that, you'd have to show what the world is like in an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and society is otherwise the same, which is simply not possible. You could point to other cultures and societies in the past, but those were fundamentally different from ours in numerous ways. So, then, where is your scientific evidence that copyright is good? Note that "Well, how else would they make money!?" is just ignorance, and doesn't qualify as proof; you can't fill in the blanks with your own explanation just because you don't have the
While it is true that drug addicts may harm other people, merely taking drugs does not harm other people. If they do go on to harm other people, then go after them for *that*, not for taking drugs.
This is why most drugs are illegal
Want to know why they're illegal? Because of people like you who despise freedom and enjoy surrendering it if you believe you'll obtain more safety. Hopefully you enjoy getting molested at airports, because people with your mentality are to blame for that.
Its enforcement does, though. Surely you've noticed that censorship is often utilized in an effort to combat copyright infringement? Oh... but that doesn't affect True Free Speech!
The free market will always go with the cheaper option.
The free market will likely go for the most profitable option. But what's your point? Again, if someone can't figure out how to profit from their work, they don't deserve a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech rights and real private property rights.
What you are basically saying is that the writer has no right to compensation for his time and creativity and it is fine for others to make millions of their backs.
Yes, and yes. If people don't want to buy his works but instead choose to distribute it or even ignore it, he has no right to their money. Furthermore, if people want to use their own private property to copy data and somehow profit from it, that is their right.
Bottom line is... I don't think people are entitled to other people's money, nor are they entitled to monopolies.
I think you would sing a different tune if you ever wrote a popular book.
A mere ad hominem attack that does nothing to debunk any of my arguments. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation is completely irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are valid.
And is that such a surprise? Humans are often greedy and selfish, so, supposing your statement is even true, I'd just be looking out for my own interests. It certainly wouldn't be because I'm somehow more 'correct' or moral than anyone else.
I believe free speech and real private property rights are more important than any amount of 'safety' copyright may or may not bring.
As for whether that's morally right, well, if they can't figure out how to profit from their works, then they don't exactly deserve money to begin with. Let the free market decide.
Please do. While I believe copyright itself is morally wrong, the situation is made even worse when copyright thugs expect other people to enforce copyright for them. This could easily be abused (and the DMCA is constantly abused, which is at least similar to this situation).
No, I just have opinions of my own. Are you not the same, or are you content with accepting everything judges say and pretending that the law is always morally right?
That has been my objection from the beginning. It seems that when people criticize the law, certain people always uselessly point out that X is illegal, or that judges have ruled Y. I do not care about such things. What I care about is that what is being described in this story is morally wrong.
What I'm saying is that I couldn't give less of a shit about legal justifications for evil laws, or what judges say. I have my own opinions, and no idiotic rationalizations of evil laws will change that.
This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies"
Actually, yes it is. The registrar has nothing to do with anything, and shouldn't be expected to investigate copyright claims.
(a statement which I find quite one-sided)
1 + 1 = 2; that's a simple fact, and I don't care if someone finds it "one-sided." When we have evil laws that give certain people monopolies over ideas, it's okay to be "one-sided" and state that such things are, in fact, evil. When a company abuses these monopolies and makes the situation even worse, again, calling them evil parasites is perfectly justified.
Killing everyone's phones is targeted and damages people much more.
But really, why would I want anyone to have this capability? It means that I'm not in control of my phone if someone else is able to kill it remotely. I'm at the mercy of someone else.
It's both. The response has caused us to waste trillions on something we barely should've responded to at all. But mostly, it's the fact that the response violates people's freedoms, which wouldn't be okay no matter how dire the situation.
It can be. We mustn't make this issue about the efficacy of the programs, but about freedom. Mentioning that the programs are ineffective is fine, but we must make it clear that they would be unacceptable even if they worked.
Slashdot Mirror
because those are the people he will be competing against.
Rote learning 'geniuses', mostly.
I'm saying that you shouldn't put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested banning such speech.
Considering that primacy of personal freedoms and the a stance against most, if not all laws, are the hallmarks of anarchy I have no problem calling you an anarchist.
Then you misunderstand my position. You would find that I am in favor of many laws, just not ones that infringe upon freedoms I deem fundamental. That is far from anarchy, which is the complete absence of government, and not my goal.
Considering that the statements I have said align much more with the arch typical capitalist than communist I would say your label is way off.
I'd say getting government thugs to enforce monopolies over ideas is more like communism, at least when considering what some of people think communism is. The word "communist," much like the word "anarchist," seems to be used to describe people one doesn't like or disagrees with. I simply used it in that way.
By the way, not using labels is a sign of an anarchist.
Saying such things is the sign of a communist. I don't bother with labels, because I ultimately care about individual policies. I have no idea what people would use to label me with these days. The labels are a mere distraction.
How about the laws against libel and slander.
What about them? They obviously infringe upon people's right to free speech, which I consider a bad thing.
Yet more evidence of anarchistic tendencies.
Only in your own mind. I was merely saying that the law is not necessarily right and does not shape my opinions.
Unless I say I'm an anarchist, don't claim that I am one, you dirty communist, you.
Now I understand.
Obviously not.
No, I see balance between my personal freedoms and the personal freedoms of others.
There cannot be any balance with fundamental freedoms like free speech. Don't pretend that not having copyright is the same as having anarchy; it's not even close.
To me, they are both the same.
Then you are ignorant both of reality and the law (at least in the US). I don't care much about the law, obviously, but it's not even on your side there.
Don't be surprised when they become angry or even violent around you because that is raw simplistic natural tendencies.
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but violence is no solution. That only shows they're mere barbarians.
I notice how you responded to every statement except about the the one about how a copier will always have an economic advantage over the original producer of a product. That is the crux of the issue and you have no way of easily dismissing it.
I don't need to easily dismiss it; I already made it clear that if they can't find a way to profit, they don't deserve other people's money or government monopolies.
Listen, insect: I care about freedom, not safety. I don't care how much 'safety' you think copyright brings people, nor do I care about how much 'good' it does.
There is no way to profit from a book if one day after publishing someone else can sell the same book for little more than the cost of production.
You could get paid as you write it. You could crowd fund the book.
The reason I don't want to suggest ways to make money is because *I shouldn't have to*. That's up to *them*, not other people. Government-enforced monopolies are unjust and anti-free market.
Examples please. I have an idea that you may be confusing copyright enforcement with censorship.
You haven't noticed how websites are taken down or domain names are altered in an attempt to enforce copyright? Not at all? You're not paying attention.
But you seem to think people are entitled to other people's work which could be converted into money.
Entitled to it? As in, someone should be forced to give someone else their work? That is a mere straw man. Rather, I thin that if someone is able to distribute the information or copy it, they should be able to, not that anyone owes them anything. Note the difference.
By the way, in most countries copyright is a limited length monopoly.
In most countries, copyright lasts more than five decades, which can't be considered reasonably limited. But that is besides the point; copyright would be unjust even if it lasted one year.
Copying and selling someone else's work is not free speech..Free speech is saying what is in your mind not copying works of others.
Transmitting data is free speech. Hosting a website that allows others to do that is free speech. The content is irrelevant. Your post is mere data, as well.
If you were talking facts then perspective would not make a different but we are talking thoughts and beliefs.
It still doesn't make a difference, because it's an utterly irrelevant point.
And we have many laws to protect people from greed.
Apparently you missed my point. Authors (not "creators") aren't somehow righteous or automatically correct. They're no less self-serving or greedy that anyone else, so of course they'd defend their little monopolies.
Copyright is a way of protecting the creator from the greed of others.
While infringing upon people's free speech rights and real private property rights, as well as ensuring that the greed of these "creators" is satisfied to the detriment of everyone else's freedom.
Then why did you play the morality card in your first post?
Because it's what I believe, not what is objectively a fact.
I noticed you made a lot of unsubstantiated claims that copyright is a good thing and helps people. Care to prove that? In order to do that, you'd have to show what the world is like in an alternate dimension where copyright doesn't exist and society is otherwise the same, which is simply not possible. You could point to other cultures and societies in the past, but those were fundamentally different from ours in numerous ways. So, then, where is your scientific evidence that copyright is good? Note that "Well, how else would they make money!?" is just ignorance, and doesn't qualify as proof; you can't fill in the blanks with your own explanation just because you don't have the
It really indicates how stupid the writer thinks everyone else is
Not everyone is stupid, but the number of people who are even remotely intelligent is absolutely minuscule.
While it is true that drug addicts may harm other people, merely taking drugs does not harm other people. If they do go on to harm other people, then go after them for *that*, not for taking drugs.
This is why most drugs are illegal
Want to know why they're illegal? Because of people like you who despise freedom and enjoy surrendering it if you believe you'll obtain more safety. Hopefully you enjoy getting molested at airports, because people with your mentality are to blame for that.
Copyright has little to do with free speech.
Its enforcement does, though. Surely you've noticed that censorship is often utilized in an effort to combat copyright infringement? Oh... but that doesn't affect True Free Speech!
The free market will always go with the cheaper option.
The free market will likely go for the most profitable option. But what's your point? Again, if someone can't figure out how to profit from their work, they don't deserve a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech rights and real private property rights.
What you are basically saying is that the writer has no right to compensation for his time and creativity and it is fine for others to make millions of their backs.
Yes, and yes. If people don't want to buy his works but instead choose to distribute it or even ignore it, he has no right to their money. Furthermore, if people want to use their own private property to copy data and somehow profit from it, that is their right.
Bottom line is... I don't think people are entitled to other people's money, nor are they entitled to monopolies.
I think you would sing a different tune if you ever wrote a popular book.
A mere ad hominem attack that does nothing to debunk any of my arguments. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation is completely irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are valid.
And is that such a surprise? Humans are often greedy and selfish, so, supposing your statement is even true, I'd just be looking out for my own interests. It certainly wouldn't be because I'm somehow more 'correct' or moral than anyone else.
I believe free speech and real private property rights are more important than any amount of 'safety' copyright may or may not bring.
As for whether that's morally right, well, if they can't figure out how to profit from their works, then they don't exactly deserve money to begin with. Let the free market decide.
I suppose it means that if the registrar had bothered to visit the website, they would have seen clear and obvious infringement with their own eyes.
I don't blame them one bit for not bothering. I wouldn't want to enforce copyright for these parasitic thugs, either.
Let me get this straight.
Please do. While I believe copyright itself is morally wrong, the situation is made even worse when copyright thugs expect other people to enforce copyright for them. This could easily be abused (and the DMCA is constantly abused, which is at least similar to this situation).
No, I just have opinions of my own. Are you not the same, or are you content with accepting everything judges say and pretending that the law is always morally right?
That has been my objection from the beginning. It seems that when people criticize the law, certain people always uselessly point out that X is illegal, or that judges have ruled Y. I do not care about such things. What I care about is that what is being described in this story is morally wrong.
Do you understand what I am saying?
What I'm saying is that I couldn't give less of a shit about legal justifications for evil laws, or what judges say. I have my own opinions, and no idiotic rationalizations of evil laws will change that.
When I criticize this, I'm not saying what I think the law is. I'm saying I think the law is wrong.
This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies"
Actually, yes it is. The registrar has nothing to do with anything, and shouldn't be expected to investigate copyright claims.
(a statement which I find quite one-sided)
1 + 1 = 2; that's a simple fact, and I don't care if someone finds it "one-sided." When we have evil laws that give certain people monopolies over ideas, it's okay to be "one-sided" and state that such things are, in fact, evil. When a company abuses these monopolies and makes the situation even worse, again, calling them evil parasites is perfectly justified.
*This* lack of action is what made them liable
Not enforcing copyright for slimy, parasitic companies? Interesting how the law works in Germany.
It's not free speech if it's something I don't like! Your post isn't free speech; it's vandalism. What an eyesore!
And it doesn't get old to hear that the government will abuse a killswitch when it never has before for the umpteenth time?
It does get old to hear that the government will abuse its powers, but it's also true. If you don't believe that, then you're ignorant of history.
Killing everyone's phones is targeted and damages people much more.
But really, why would I want anyone to have this capability? It means that I'm not in control of my phone if someone else is able to kill it remotely. I'm at the mercy of someone else.
The people who want to give up freedom for safety think like 5-year-olds, so that sort of writing style is entirely appropriate.
It's both. The response has caused us to waste trillions on something we barely should've responded to at all. But mostly, it's the fact that the response violates people's freedoms, which wouldn't be okay no matter how dire the situation.
The response being out of proportion is a good thing.
Good for who? For us? The result was that we get molested at airports, spied on, and drained of money. That's not a good thing.
This can't be reiterated enough.
It can be. We mustn't make this issue about the efficacy of the programs, but about freedom. Mentioning that the programs are ineffective is fine, but we must make it clear that they would be unacceptable even if they worked.
Sadly, they're only up in arms about it because it's democrats doing it. The same would be true the other way around.
No one actually seems to care about the freedom aspect of this whole situation.