But when a privacy advocate speaks about issues such as these, he's advocating that the government recognize people's rights. When people like this general say such things, you know it means the government is trying hard to keep its rights-infringing programs active, which is unacceptable.
So while it may not be surprising that a privacy advocate would advocate for privacy, the implications are very different.
The constitution is just a set of guidelines to prevent abuse from a totalitarian government.
The constitution is the highest law of the land in the US, and it is the very reason the government is even allowed to exist.
And the constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, not a blacklist of those it doesn't.
Laws routinely limit the rights of citizens.
And unless the constitution explicitly allows for those laws, they are unconstitutional. The TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, protest permits, etc. are all unconstitutional. That our judiciary branch is often complicit in the crimes against the American people does not mean these things are constitutional.
You have a right to free speech, but you can't say CUNT on TV.
Then you don't have a right to free speech, and the government is violating the constitution. There is no justification for prohibiting speech certain people find offensive (even many people), and certainly not a constitutional one. It being a public broadcast changes absolutely nothing, since the government has no power to infringe upon free speech rights just because it's a public broadcast.
More importantly, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free or brave people wouldn't sacrifice their fundamental liberties for security.
What an authoritarian asshole this guy is, though that's to be expected.
Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite.
You seem to be defending digital restrictions management, which is essentially malware that restricts the user's computing and assumes that the user is an enemy.
The difference between airplane/cinema tickets and DRM is obviously that you do not own the airplane or the cinema, whereas you do own your computer. And treating the computer owner as an enemy by default and often placing malicious restrictions upon them is disgusting.
It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available
No, it doesn't. I don't use anything with DRM, so it does no such thing for *me*.
as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content".
False dichotomy. Plenty of companies release their games without DRM, even now. DRM just provides an illusion of safety in almost all cases.
But even if it didn't, that still wouldn't make it okay.
The ones at fault here are the ones making it. If someone makes more, then it's their problem. If we don't like kids being raped, then go after the ones making it to begin with, and stop wasting resources going after people who possess images.
Also, I would say "Not all child porn costs money.", but the 'for the children' crowd is so irrational that they'd probably say even someone looking at child porn encourages them to make more, as if that's a valid reason to forbid images.
The "for the children" crowd is made up of irrational losers.
Oh, no. He had images. Let's waste resources convicting people who possess certain kinds of images, rather than going after the actual rapists. In this case, you shouldn't focus on both at once, because possession of images shouldn't be a crime to begin with.
And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.
I never claimed to not be harmed by the actions of these thugs, but being harmed by the government doesn't make one a government boot-licker, or whatever else you're saying.
No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.
What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.
As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.
And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.
It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.
And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.
There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.
The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.
Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely.
Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.
And it may not be the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely, but what the TSA et al. do is blatantly unconstitutional, and they infringe upon our fundamental liberties. That is intolerable, even if it is temporary.
You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws
Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?
And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.
No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant.
I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.
Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me".
My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.
The fact is you put up with all of those things
I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.
I also participate in protests, write to my 'representatives', attempt to convince others to join me, and vote accordingly. There's only so much one person can do.
So how am I a "government boot-licker," and how do I "put up with all of those things"?
you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.
Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.
if you cannot understand the source code, then you do not have control.
But you can hire someone else who does understand the code, or learn to understand it to the best of your ability.
You think it has to be perfect? It doesn't. The point is, having the source code provides more opportunities for giving yourself control than not having it at all.
if that bothers you then you do not use it
I don't. That doesn't stop other people from being restricted. It's a matter of education.
but one is of incredible importance and the other is completely unessential and unnecessary
So you say. I believe believe both are of importance, for reasons already mentioned.
If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.
People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.
And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?
No, but the fact that they use things which does not give one the freedom to does.
Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.
the idea that you "dont have control" if you use proprietary software in contrast to free software is nonsense, you run binaries on your system and even when you have the source code you do not understand them in their entirety so you relinquish control to those programs that you yourself do not understand.
If you cannot see the source code, then you do not have control. Even if you don't understand the source code fully, it still gives you more options than binary blobs.
wrong again. i did not say or imply anything of the sort. i am saying that if you were to escape proprietary software then the logical place to start is not in a place where you can quarantine it and control it by doing obvious things such as useing jails and virtual machines or in this case its use is so trivial that you dont need it at all. the obvious place to start is where it has a genuine impact where a fault can cause you harm and you cannot simply eliminate that risk with a form of sandbox.
Using a virtual machine only does so much. You still do not have access to the source code, and are still restricted.
and i am sure you will claim you never go in planes, trains, trams or taxis and that you probably dont use banks either. those are the cases where eliminating proprietary software actually *is* important but instead the focus is on non-essential areas in which an environment can easily be crafted to control and eliminate any risk anyway.
In that case, it's a mere false dichotomy. Both problems can be tackled, and should be.
Well then I'm confused. On one hand, you seem to be advocating for the right of people to obtain creative works produced by others without paying for them.
I advocate for the removal of government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon real private property and free speech rights.
Yes, their monopolies would be removed, but that does not mean they could not try to make money. Whether they succeed or fail is irrelevant.
On the other, you seem to think that for some reason, those content producers are going to keep producing content without being compensated for their time and efforts, and you think it's OK not to compensate them for their time and efforts even though they intended to be so compensated when they produced the work.
Lots of people intend to be compensated for many things. Part of running a business is accepting that you may very well fail. The free market will decide if you succeed or fail.
And I think no such thing about "content producers." I do not have an opinion of whether innovation would increase, decrease, or remain the same without copyright. The benefits of copyright has not been scientifically proven. Of course, that doesn't stop people from making baseless claims and saying that the burden of proof is on everyone else, even though they're the ones advocating that restrictions be placed on others without any proof of anything.
You can argue that copyright infringement isn't stealing all you want, but you and I both know that distributing or downloading content for free that is not offered for free is theft in the common parlance.
The "common parlance" means nothing to me. People use propaganda terms like "intellectual property" and "piracy" all the time, but I reject those. I do not care about popularity; I care about clarity and honesty.
No, you are not stealing the actual work, but you are stealing the income that your receipt of the work should have generated.
You cannot steal something that they never owned. "should have" is 100% subjective.
Copyright infringement is not even legally considered stealing. You are simply incorrect.
In short, you are free to argue that piracy is somehow OK because you're not physically transferring goods, but you'll be wrong, and you'll be advocating for unethical behavior and are advocating for being dishonest about the ethics of that behavior.
Your idea of ethics means nothing to me, and I do not care whether or not you believe in a magical moral fairy.
DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.
So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.
Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening. Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage), I simply like to know what things are doing.
you are so brainwashed into just parroting the FOSS line that you cant even explain *why* you oppose it.
I already explained. That you cannot read is not my problem; it's yours.
but the real joke is that while you go on and on desperately trying to further your crusade against DRM and proprietary software on your personal computer you freely put your life in the hands of proprietary software that you cannot and have not examined every time you use a bus, train, car, plane, etc.
You seem to be comparing having proprietary nonsense on your own machines (and therefore not having control of your own property) with other people having proprietary nonsense on their property (where they don't have control). A bad comparison.
You also seem to be saying that because you cannot escape proprietary software completely, you should stop trying to do so at all. Well, that's just the perfect solution fallacy, and it's a fallacy for a reason.
And as for a car, I do not have such software in my car; I made sure of that.
Do you have an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?
That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea.
I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.
With that said, that sentence you typed pretty much proves that your a child molester. Hey, while we're just making shit up and pretending we know what the other person thinks, why not go all out?
Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?
It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.
For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.
I have exactly one choice in my area, and many places in the US are the same. Many more only have two choices, with few having more than that. It's difficult to imagine having less choice than this.
And upgrades? I don't know what they did with all that money they received, but they certainly never upgraded a thing.
Between not having any tools and having sloppy tools, I'd much rather have the latter. In fact, I've scarcely seen official modding tools for games that weren't sloppy in a number of ways.
So what you're saying is that people who create something should donate their time and creative abilities for free.
No, I'm saying that copyright infringement (or running your own servers) is not stealing. It's not even legally considered stealing.
And besides that, I never once said anyone has to work for free. Anyone can try to make money, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. So, no, I'm not telling people they have to work for free, and to say otherwise is a mere straw man.
(Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, because the bottom line is that you want to steal people's creativity and time, and instead of just owning up to it, you want to try and justify it through some pseudo-intellectual "information wants to be free" tired old cyberpunk crap, but hey, it's worth a shot).
Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, because the bottom line is that you want to steal people's rights, and instead of just owning up to it, you want to try and justify it through some pseudo-intellectual "think of the artists" tired old emotional crap, but hey, it's worth a shot
Three issues: 1) I've never uttered the phrase "information wants to be free," because information can't want anything, so it doesn't make sense. The arguments that I make are quite different and more fleshed-out; if you think otherwise, you may need to reread my comments. 2) As I pointed out above, do not tell me what *I* believe, or else I can just as easily do the same to you. 3) That wasn't even relevant to anything; it certainly doesn't strengthen any of your arguments.
In order for the subscriptions to be stolen, Blizzard would have had to 'own' them first.
What this really is is someone deciding to play around with the data on their *own equipment* and reverse engineer some code and even use it. To say that any of this is wrong in general is just absurd, and shows how backwards our society's thinking is.
Furthermore, people *voluntarily* decide to use these servers. Providing competition is most certainly not "stealing."
A few problems: 1) Authors do not tend to work for the people who violate their copyrights. 2) The copyright violators do not actually obtain the time that they have supposedly 'stolen.'
But if, for example, EA hired people to make a game and did not pay, what you said would make slightly more sense, but because of point 2, it still wouldn't be stealing in the normal sense.
What is stolen is the copyright: the exclusive right to control distribution.
If it was stolen, then that means the people who 'stole' it now have the exclusive right to control distribution.
What's really being 'stolen' are people's free speech and private property rights.
If you have a problem with copyright then restrict yourself to non-copyright works instead.
Why? I don't recognize copyright law as legitimate, so I don't care.
The problem is that those who oppose copyright know that their alternative does not work so instead they just break copyright law.
Or could it be that you're so scared of finding out that copyright doesn't work that you want to keep it around without actual proof that it does work? Or did you think that there is valid scientific proof that copyright is effective, even though it's simply assumed by idiots like you that it is effective?
The standards of proof in laws and public policy are absolutely pathetic. We end up with garbage like copyright that has never been proven.
If the alternative does indeed work then you shouldn't need to worry about copyright at all.
You do realize that the "government" is mostly composed of normal citizens who were elected into their positions, right? Stop forcing a distinction between "us" and "the government".. It's one and the same.
Our government is not us. The US has a two party system where people are 'forced' to vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, and people do not necessarily agree with even 50% of their candidate's policies.
Also, those in the government are individuals who have powers that ordinary people don't have. We are very much different.
When you make that separation, it becomes much easier to acquiesce to the wrongdoing because it's perpetrated by "the government" which is some faceless golem that is out of reach.
Not even remotely true. Whether my enemy is faceless or not, I oppose anyone who supports the nonsense I describe.
Also, just because I don't mention names (I'd have to mention nearly all politicians if I did.) doesn't mean I don't know who to vote for and who to discard.
Your post is about as vague as saying "Memorizing random poems builds character." You could say similar things about anything. "Mentioning names will cause you to dehumanize people and turn you into a violent thug." How does this happen? No one knows; but I said it, so it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
But when a privacy advocate speaks about issues such as these, he's advocating that the government recognize people's rights. When people like this general say such things, you know it means the government is trying hard to keep its rights-infringing programs active, which is unacceptable.
So while it may not be surprising that a privacy advocate would advocate for privacy, the implications are very different.
The constitution is just a set of guidelines to prevent abuse from a totalitarian government.
The constitution is the highest law of the land in the US, and it is the very reason the government is even allowed to exist.
And the constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, not a blacklist of those it doesn't.
Laws routinely limit the rights of citizens.
And unless the constitution explicitly allows for those laws, they are unconstitutional. The TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, protest permits, etc. are all unconstitutional. That our judiciary branch is often complicit in the crimes against the American people does not mean these things are constitutional.
You have a right to free speech, but you can't say CUNT on TV.
Then you don't have a right to free speech, and the government is violating the constitution. There is no justification for prohibiting speech certain people find offensive (even many people), and certainly not a constitutional one. It being a public broadcast changes absolutely nothing, since the government has no power to infringe upon free speech rights just because it's a public broadcast.
What was your point?
More importantly, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free or brave people wouldn't sacrifice their fundamental liberties for security.
What an authoritarian asshole this guy is, though that's to be expected.
Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite.
You seem to be defending digital restrictions management, which is essentially malware that restricts the user's computing and assumes that the user is an enemy.
The difference between airplane/cinema tickets and DRM is obviously that you do not own the airplane or the cinema, whereas you do own your computer. And treating the computer owner as an enemy by default and often placing malicious restrictions upon them is disgusting.
It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available
No, it doesn't. I don't use anything with DRM, so it does no such thing for *me*.
as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content".
False dichotomy. Plenty of companies release their games without DRM, even now. DRM just provides an illusion of safety in almost all cases.
But even if it didn't, that still wouldn't make it okay.
The ones at fault here are the ones making it. If someone makes more, then it's their problem. If we don't like kids being raped, then go after the ones making it to begin with, and stop wasting resources going after people who possess images.
Also, I would say "Not all child porn costs money.", but the 'for the children' crowd is so irrational that they'd probably say even someone looking at child porn encourages them to make more, as if that's a valid reason to forbid images.
The "for the children" crowd is made up of irrational losers.
Oh, no. He had images. Let's waste resources convicting people who possess certain kinds of images, rather than going after the actual rapists. In this case, you shouldn't focus on both at once, because possession of images shouldn't be a crime to begin with.
But in doing so you let them restrict you
And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.
I never claimed to not be harmed by the actions of these thugs, but being harmed by the government doesn't make one a government boot-licker, or whatever else you're saying.
No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.
What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.
As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.
And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.
It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.
And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.
There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.
The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.
Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely.
Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.
And it may not be the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely, but what the TSA et al. do is blatantly unconstitutional, and they infringe upon our fundamental liberties. That is intolerable, even if it is temporary.
You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws
Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?
And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.
No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant.
I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.
Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me".
My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.
The fact is you put up with all of those things
I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.
I also participate in protests, write to my 'representatives', attempt to convince others to join me, and vote accordingly. There's only so much one person can do.
So how am I a "government boot-licker," and how do I "put up with all of those things"?
you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.
Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.
if you cannot understand the source code, then you do not have control.
But you can hire someone else who does understand the code, or learn to understand it to the best of your ability.
You think it has to be perfect? It doesn't. The point is, having the source code provides more opportunities for giving yourself control than not having it at all.
if that bothers you then you do not use it
I don't. That doesn't stop other people from being restricted. It's a matter of education.
but one is of incredible importance and the other is completely unessential and unnecessary
So you say. I believe believe both are of importance, for reasons already mentioned.
you cant get rid of all proprietary software
You can try.
If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.
People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.
And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?
No, but the fact that they use things which does not give one the freedom to does.
Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.
The other issues remain.
the idea that you "dont have control" if you use proprietary software in contrast to free software is nonsense, you run binaries on your system and even when you have the source code you do not understand them in their entirety so you relinquish control to those programs that you yourself do not understand.
If you cannot see the source code, then you do not have control. Even if you don't understand the source code fully, it still gives you more options than binary blobs.
wrong again. i did not say or imply anything of the sort. i am saying that if you were to escape proprietary software then the logical place to start is not in a place where you can quarantine it and control it by doing obvious things such as useing jails and virtual machines or in this case its use is so trivial that you dont need it at all. the obvious place to start is where it has a genuine impact where a fault can cause you harm and you cannot simply eliminate that risk with a form of sandbox.
Using a virtual machine only does so much. You still do not have access to the source code, and are still restricted.
and i am sure you will claim you never go in planes, trains, trams or taxis and that you probably dont use banks either. those are the cases where eliminating proprietary software actually *is* important but instead the focus is on non-essential areas in which an environment can easily be crafted to control and eliminate any risk anyway.
In that case, it's a mere false dichotomy. Both problems can be tackled, and should be.
Well then I'm confused. On one hand, you seem to be advocating for the right of people to obtain creative works produced by others without paying for them.
I advocate for the removal of government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon real private property and free speech rights.
Yes, their monopolies would be removed, but that does not mean they could not try to make money. Whether they succeed or fail is irrelevant.
On the other, you seem to think that for some reason, those content producers are going to keep producing content without being compensated for their time and efforts, and you think it's OK not to compensate them for their time and efforts even though they intended to be so compensated when they produced the work.
Lots of people intend to be compensated for many things. Part of running a business is accepting that you may very well fail. The free market will decide if you succeed or fail.
And I think no such thing about "content producers." I do not have an opinion of whether innovation would increase, decrease, or remain the same without copyright. The benefits of copyright has not been scientifically proven. Of course, that doesn't stop people from making baseless claims and saying that the burden of proof is on everyone else, even though they're the ones advocating that restrictions be placed on others without any proof of anything.
You can argue that copyright infringement isn't stealing all you want, but you and I both know that distributing or downloading content for free that is not offered for free is theft in the common parlance.
The "common parlance" means nothing to me. People use propaganda terms like "intellectual property" and "piracy" all the time, but I reject those. I do not care about popularity; I care about clarity and honesty.
No, you are not stealing the actual work, but you are stealing the income that your receipt of the work should have generated.
You cannot steal something that they never owned. "should have" is 100% subjective.
Copyright infringement is not even legally considered stealing. You are simply incorrect.
In short, you are free to argue that piracy is somehow OK because you're not physically transferring goods, but you'll be wrong, and you'll be advocating for unethical behavior and are advocating for being dishonest about the ethics of that behavior.
Your idea of ethics means nothing to me, and I do not care whether or not you believe in a magical moral fairy.
And if it doesn't get in your way?
DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.
So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.
Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening. Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage), I simply like to know what things are doing.
you are so brainwashed into just parroting the FOSS line that you cant even explain *why* you oppose it.
I already explained. That you cannot read is not my problem; it's yours.
but the real joke is that while you go on and on desperately trying to further your crusade against DRM and proprietary software on your personal computer you freely put your life in the hands of proprietary software that you cannot and have not examined every time you use a bus, train, car, plane, etc.
You seem to be comparing having proprietary nonsense on your own machines (and therefore not having control of your own property) with other people having proprietary nonsense on their property (where they don't have control). A bad comparison.
You also seem to be saying that because you cannot escape proprietary software completely, you should stop trying to do so at all. Well, that's just the perfect solution fallacy, and it's a fallacy for a reason.
And as for a car, I do not have such software in my car; I made sure of that.
Do you have an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?
That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea.
I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.
With that said, that sentence you typed pretty much proves that your a child molester. Hey, while we're just making shit up and pretending we know what the other person thinks, why not go all out?
Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?
It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.
For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.
Then those people are ignorant, since DRM is for suckers.
You might view it as unacceptable so don't use those services and don't support that content.
I already don't.
No, DRM *is* the problem. DRM is malicious in the sense that it tries to control the user's computing in unacceptable ways.
DRM is also a symptom of proprietary software, which is also bad.
I have exactly one choice in my area, and many places in the US are the same. Many more only have two choices, with few having more than that. It's difficult to imagine having less choice than this.
And upgrades? I don't know what they did with all that money they received, but they certainly never upgraded a thing.
Between not having any tools and having sloppy tools, I'd much rather have the latter. In fact, I've scarcely seen official modding tools for games that weren't sloppy in a number of ways.
What a dumb reason to not release tools.
How did this straw man get modded up?
So what you're saying is that people who create something should donate their time and creative abilities for free.
No, I'm saying that copyright infringement (or running your own servers) is not stealing. It's not even legally considered stealing.
And besides that, I never once said anyone has to work for free. Anyone can try to make money, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. So, no, I'm not telling people they have to work for free, and to say otherwise is a mere straw man.
(Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, because the bottom line is that you want to steal people's creativity and time, and instead of just owning up to it, you want to try and justify it through some pseudo-intellectual "information wants to be free" tired old cyberpunk crap, but hey, it's worth a shot).
Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, because the bottom line is that you want to steal people's rights, and instead of just owning up to it, you want to try and justify it through some pseudo-intellectual "think of the artists" tired old emotional crap, but hey, it's worth a shot
Three issues:
1) I've never uttered the phrase "information wants to be free," because information can't want anything, so it doesn't make sense. The arguments that I make are quite different and more fleshed-out; if you think otherwise, you may need to reread my comments.
2) As I pointed out above, do not tell me what *I* believe, or else I can just as easily do the same to you.
3) That wasn't even relevant to anything; it certainly doesn't strengthen any of your arguments.
In order for the subscriptions to be stolen, Blizzard would have had to 'own' them first.
What this really is is someone deciding to play around with the data on their *own equipment* and reverse engineer some code and even use it. To say that any of this is wrong in general is just absurd, and shows how backwards our society's thinking is.
Furthermore, people *voluntarily* decide to use these servers. Providing competition is most certainly not "stealing."
A few problems:
1) Authors do not tend to work for the people who violate their copyrights.
2) The copyright violators do not actually obtain the time that they have supposedly 'stolen.'
But if, for example, EA hired people to make a game and did not pay, what you said would make slightly more sense, but because of point 2, it still wouldn't be stealing in the normal sense.
What is stolen is the copyright: the exclusive right to control distribution.
If it was stolen, then that means the people who 'stole' it now have the exclusive right to control distribution.
What's really being 'stolen' are people's free speech and private property rights.
If you have a problem with copyright then restrict yourself to non-copyright works instead.
Why? I don't recognize copyright law as legitimate, so I don't care.
The problem is that those who oppose copyright know that their alternative does not work so instead they just break copyright law.
Or could it be that you're so scared of finding out that copyright doesn't work that you want to keep it around without actual proof that it does work? Or did you think that there is valid scientific proof that copyright is effective, even though it's simply assumed by idiots like you that it is effective?
The standards of proof in laws and public policy are absolutely pathetic. We end up with garbage like copyright that has never been proven.
If the alternative does indeed work then you shouldn't need to worry about copyright at all.
And I don't worry about it. At all.
You do realize that the "government" is mostly composed of normal citizens who were elected into their positions, right? Stop forcing a distinction between "us" and "the government".. It's one and the same.
Our government is not us. The US has a two party system where people are 'forced' to vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, and people do not necessarily agree with even 50% of their candidate's policies.
Also, those in the government are individuals who have powers that ordinary people don't have. We are very much different.
When you make that separation, it becomes much easier to acquiesce to the wrongdoing because it's perpetrated by "the government" which is some faceless golem that is out of reach.
Not even remotely true. Whether my enemy is faceless or not, I oppose anyone who supports the nonsense I describe.
Also, just because I don't mention names (I'd have to mention nearly all politicians if I did.) doesn't mean I don't know who to vote for and who to discard.
Your post is about as vague as saying "Memorizing random poems builds character." You could say similar things about anything. "Mentioning names will cause you to dehumanize people and turn you into a violent thug." How does this happen? No one knows; but I said it, so it's true.