Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.
I don't think so.
We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China.
So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?
This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain
Who says there would be an absence of personal gain? Given a lack of copyright, people would have to strive to find other ways to make money. No one can say what it would look like.
Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.
Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out
Been there, done that. The least you could do is say something that wasn't already said in one of those comments; something I didn't already respond to. The next best thing would be to get rid of copyright, since, again, there is no scientific evidence for it, and by default, restrictions should not exist, so the burden of proof is on those defending restrictions.
We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't.
I support freedom of speech because I believe freedom of speech is a good thing in and of itself and should not be limited. I simply like the idea of being able to speak freely and not being censored. That is why I do not care for the 'safety mentality' that gives us 'amazing' things like the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all those other things the government uses to violate our rights.
However, we make allowances for certain cases
You might, and society obviously does, but I don't.
Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad.
That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright. My point, as I've made clear, is that copyright itself is intolerable because it infringes upon free speech and real private property rights, regardless of any 'good' people think it does. The less important point I make is that there's no actual scientific evidence that it even is beneficial to begin with.
The *entire point* is to teach them to understand math. Someone won't understand the "why" by doing a bunch of useless arithmetic problems in their heads, no matter how many they do.
Case in point, I know more than a few mathematicians, and they don't waste their time figuring out useless arithmetic problems in their heads. Some of these people can't quickly or even accurately do these calculators in their heads, and yet they're far, far more intelligent than most losers our high schools and colleges pump out. It's because they understand why and how it all works, not just do useless, repetitive problems and memorize facts. Math is not about speed, or being able to do arithmetic in your head quickly, but about understanding.
However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.
It doesn't matter whether you did intend to purchase it or not; money you never had isn't something you can lose.
Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket.
Yeah, but you risk being kicked off by the property owners. But there is no tangible harm there, you're right.
DRM necessarily means that you're not in full control of your computing, or that someone is attempting to take control away from you, and that alone means it's automatically bad. Steam is not "reasonable DRM," as reasonable DRM does not exist. And as far as I'm aware, games on Steam don't *need* to use DRM.
Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators.
No, it doesn't; it's just an irrelevant point. What I care about is freedom, not the safety of authors (anything but "creators," please). Copyright infringes upon freedom of speech (through the use of censorship and other means) and private property rights, while patents infringe upon the latter. That alone makes them intolerable to me.
A less important point (less important because freedom is still what's most important, and I wouldn't accept copyright/patents even if they were proven to be beneficial because of that) is that you have no scientific evidence (been there, done that) that copyrights and patents are effective.
If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.
If you're going to pretend as if economics is what's important, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright and its ilk.
The entire notion that you should be able to have a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods that infringe upon free speech and private property rights is something I believe qualifies as an "entitled asshole mentality."
I'll go along with the notion that sometimes the government breaks the law for the greater good
Why? The government, of all things, must follow the law (which obviously includes the constitution). I don't want a government that feels it can break the law and infringe upon people's individual liberties "for the greater good."
Sure, it's probably a cakewalk compared to what the intelligence community would put him through and where he would end up once they're 'done' - but I think he's feeling quite a few consequences of his actions and revelations, and I tend to think those consequences are plenty unjust as they are.
I think people are wrong in saying that you have to be suicidal, a martyr, or masochistic to be a hero.
He seems to be of the opinion that security is more important than freedom, even though he's living in a country that is called "the land of the free." The whole notion of it being better for numerous guilty people to get away than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted is probably equally as disgusting to him.
Not everyone likes freedom, especially those who haven't had to live without it, or those without principles.
"Bill Gates tells his main priority focuses on stopping the bad guys"
And yet he lives in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. You're not free if you give away your freedoms for security, and you're not brave, either. Amazing how people think the government is composed of perfect angels, even though minimal knowledge of government abuses throughout history will tell you that governments ('even' the US government) cannot be trusted with such powers.
Imaginary beings can't give me anything, but even if such a thing existed, the punishments for not submitting often seem unpleasant, so from the sound of it, these characters that people made up don't care all that much about free will, nor do they do much to honor it.
Many countries ban certain kinds of "hate speech," have DUI checkpoints (like in the US), have the equivalent of the TSA, and even spy on their citizens. While I would definitely agree that education in the US is abysmal, I would also say it's the same way everywhere else (And being able to read a certain level isn't much of an accomplishment. Real education starts after that, but no country seems to want educated citizens).
If you are so paranoid about people seeing you, then stay home.
That sounds sustainable.
Sounds like a man doing things he knows he shouldn't be doing and worried that his boss might see the picture.
Bosses are known to fire/not hire people simply because those people do things they don't like (such as getting drunk at a party). To say that he must be doing something he shouldn't be is to have absolute faith in the rationality of moronic bosses who expect everyone to comply with their arbitrary rules, which is pure idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
you would know that they are separate issues
Obviously, I acknowledged that they are separate issues. Not sure what the point of your comment was.
Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.
I don't think so.
We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China.
So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?
This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain
Who says there would be an absence of personal gain? Given a lack of copyright, people would have to strive to find other ways to make money. No one can say what it would look like.
Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.
Much like copyright itself.
Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out
Been there, done that. The least you could do is say something that wasn't already said in one of those comments; something I didn't already respond to. The next best thing would be to get rid of copyright, since, again, there is no scientific evidence for it, and by default, restrictions should not exist, so the burden of proof is on those defending restrictions.
We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't.
I support freedom of speech because I believe freedom of speech is a good thing in and of itself and should not be limited. I simply like the idea of being able to speak freely and not being censored. That is why I do not care for the 'safety mentality' that gives us 'amazing' things like the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all those other things the government uses to violate our rights.
However, we make allowances for certain cases
You might, and society obviously does, but I don't.
Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad.
That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright. My point, as I've made clear, is that copyright itself is intolerable because it infringes upon free speech and real private property rights, regardless of any 'good' people think it does. The less important point I make is that there's no actual scientific evidence that it even is beneficial to begin with.
It's the same thing when you try to do math
The *entire point* is to teach them to understand math. Someone won't understand the "why" by doing a bunch of useless arithmetic problems in their heads, no matter how many they do.
Case in point, I know more than a few mathematicians, and they don't waste their time figuring out useless arithmetic problems in their heads. Some of these people can't quickly or even accurately do these calculators in their heads, and yet they're far, far more intelligent than most losers our high schools and colleges pump out. It's because they understand why and how it all works, not just do useless, repetitive problems and memorize facts. Math is not about speed, or being able to do arithmetic in your head quickly, but about understanding.
However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.
It doesn't matter whether you did intend to purchase it or not; money you never had isn't something you can lose.
Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket.
Yeah, but you risk being kicked off by the property owners. But there is no tangible harm there, you're right.
Never heard that one before. See how it went for him.
I mean, if you disregard pre-teen freeloaders with no money and little morals
Copying bits has little to do with morality.
DRM necessarily means that you're not in full control of your computing, or that someone is attempting to take control away from you, and that alone means it's automatically bad. Steam is not "reasonable DRM," as reasonable DRM does not exist. And as far as I'm aware, games on Steam don't *need* to use DRM.
Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators.
No, it doesn't; it's just an irrelevant point. What I care about is freedom, not the safety of authors (anything but "creators," please). Copyright infringes upon freedom of speech (through the use of censorship and other means) and private property rights, while patents infringe upon the latter. That alone makes them intolerable to me.
A less important point (less important because freedom is still what's most important, and I wouldn't accept copyright/patents even if they were proven to be beneficial because of that) is that you have no scientific evidence (been there, done that) that copyrights and patents are effective.
If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.
If you're going to pretend as if economics is what's important, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright and its ilk.
it's about taking someone's work VERBATIM.
Nothing is being taken.
reasonable DRM
Isn't something that actually exists.
Paid for what?
The entire notion that you should be able to have a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods that infringe upon free speech and private property rights is something I believe qualifies as an "entitled asshole mentality."
The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.
I'll go along with the notion that sometimes the government breaks the law for the greater good
Why? The government, of all things, must follow the law (which obviously includes the constitution). I don't want a government that feels it can break the law and infringe upon people's individual liberties "for the greater good."
They are meddlesome do gooders who are willing to destroy society and the status quo just to make a name for themselves.
Don't decide what other people's intentions are for them.
Sure, it's probably a cakewalk compared to what the intelligence community would put him through and where he would end up once they're 'done' - but I think he's feeling quite a few consequences of his actions and revelations, and I tend to think those consequences are plenty unjust as they are.
I think people are wrong in saying that you have to be suicidal, a martyr, or masochistic to be a hero.
He seems to be of the opinion that security is more important than freedom, even though he's living in a country that is called "the land of the free." The whole notion of it being better for numerous guilty people to get away than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted is probably equally as disgusting to him.
Not everyone likes freedom, especially those who haven't had to live without it, or those without principles.
"Bill Gates tells his main priority focuses on stopping the bad guys"
And yet he lives in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. You're not free if you give away your freedoms for security, and you're not brave, either. Amazing how people think the government is composed of perfect angels, even though minimal knowledge of government abuses throughout history will tell you that governments ('even' the US government) cannot be trusted with such powers.
Imaginary beings can't give me anything, but even if such a thing existed, the punishments for not submitting often seem unpleasant, so from the sound of it, these characters that people made up don't care all that much about free will, nor do they do much to honor it.
Many countries ban certain kinds of "hate speech," have DUI checkpoints (like in the US), have the equivalent of the TSA, and even spy on their citizens. While I would definitely agree that education in the US is abysmal, I would also say it's the same way everywhere else (And being able to read a certain level isn't much of an accomplishment. Real education starts after that, but no country seems to want educated citizens).
Yes, it is. Speech is speech.
If you are so paranoid about people seeing you, then stay home.
That sounds sustainable.
Sounds like a man doing things he knows he shouldn't be doing and worried that his boss might see the picture.
Bosses are known to fire/not hire people simply because those people do things they don't like (such as getting drunk at a party). To say that he must be doing something he shouldn't be is to have absolute faith in the rationality of moronic bosses who expect everyone to comply with their arbitrary rules, which is pure idiocy.
Mistakes in judgement aren't the same as lies.
Well, yeah they do if they want to live in a real world
Everyone lives in the real world, whether they want to or not. There's literally nowhere else to live. To suggest otherwise is pure idiocy.