It's like debating with someone who is in vehement disagreement with certain laws and traditions.
It's not your property.
Whatever it is stored on is your own property. You generally use your own property to transmit the information, as well. Other people use their own property to receive the information. It's all quite voluntary, and this would be the natural state of things if it were not for censorship and anti-private property laws.
But mere laws cannot stop something that seems so natural in the age of information, as well as something that is so simple to do.
the sellers would suffer financially from loss of income.
There is a difference between not gaining and losing.
If you like sticking it to people who give you stuff, you're just a selfish person.
Fortunately, it has nothing to do with sticking it to anyone. That seems futile. It would be like downloading a movie thousands of times and expecting each download to hurt the MPAA; nonsensical.
No, the physical property is cheap plastic costing between 10 and 50 cents. The IP containing files stored on that are the reason it costs $10.
That's irrelevant. In order to have permission to leave the store with the physical property, you need to pay them what they're asking for, since it's their physical property and they set the terms and conditions. They could charge three times the normal asking price for something just because they like whatever it is; it makes no difference why.
Um, no. Law enforcement has a responsibility to stick to the principles that this country supposedly aspires to.
It is their fault for doing this garbage, and the courts are also at fault for not stopping them. Saying it's one or the either is just a false dichotomy.
How does garbage like this get modded up? He should not be reporting any of this to corrupt government scumbags to begin with. If the government is violating the highest law of the land and/or conducting highly immoral activities, the people need to be informed immediately. Period. Wasting time with government thugs only decreases the chances that you'll be able to successfully leak the documents when you need to.
He is, at best, a publicity whore, but most likely a traitor
Really? Then what are all these scumbags in the government who support programs that violate the constitution and the fundamental liberties of millions of people?
It's amazing how reporting government activities that are directly opposed to the ideals to which this country is supposed to aspire makes you a "publicity whore" or a "traitor."
Also, I know that he did try to go through the 'right channel', but I think that was a bad idea on his part. What if they shut him out afterwards, got rid of him, or some other such thing, and he was prevented from being able to leak the documents? This is why you need to leak the activities of these government scumbags to the people; it's the only moral thing to do.
He would not lose "credibility" at all by not reporting this shit in secret to corrupt government scumbags; the documents would still expose the constitutional violations and immoral activities, and the people would know. So, how is that losing "credibility"?
That's a terrible fucking idea. If the government is violating the highest law of the land, then the people need to be the first to know. Trying to go the "right way" isn't the right way at all! Informing the people should happen first, because otherwise you jeopardize your mission.
Because, as we've seen, copyright enforcement leads to censorship and the loss of real private property rights. Censorship is the biggest issue for me; I find it 100% intolerable.
But I guess you can't because you're not talented and have no skill, or money required to create anything of value.
Interesting how you make such statements about someone you don't know. I'm a software developer, and I wouldn't make money if I didn't create anything of value. Do you just want it to be true? "You're not a 'creator'!" is either a logical fallacy or just an irrelevancy, depending on what was meant.
Are you copyright proponents too talentless and lazy to create anything of value and successfully market it in a world that had a real free market? By the way, since that would be similar to the idiotic thing you said above, that question is not serious.
LOL, you should walk into walmart, take one of their DVDs and pay them a dollar for the physical DVD but not for the files inside, (since intellectual property is worthless according to you), and if they demand the retail price
Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.
If the government is doing something blatantly unconstitutional, as the NSA was, then the people need to know about it. Risking it all being swept under the rug by trying to go to the 'proper channels' is foolish for exactly that reason. The people should be the first to know what the evil scumbags in the government are doing.
I don't know who he unjustifiably betrayed, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't the ideals that this country is supposed to aspire to.
The first article is just an opinion from someone much like yourself, while the second link is a propaganda piece that only applies in very limited scenarios to begin with. You have not shown that copyright infringement is legally (i.e. by the courts) considered theft. Government agencies can say whatever they want.
By the way, we are talking about copyright infringement in general. Don't confuse "Copyright infringement is theft." with "Copyright infringement is legally considered a certain form of theft in certain situations." They differ.
The first article is just an opinion from someone much like yourself, while the second link is a propaganda piece that only applies in very limited scenarios to begin with. You have not shown that copyright infringement is legally (i.e. by the courts) considered theft. Government agencies can say whatever they want.
If you derive benefit from someone's work, whether it's tangible or intangible, you have to pay their selling price, otherwise it's stealing.
It's copyright infringement.
No, wait, it's actually rape. Copyright infringement is rape. Meanings are irrelevant; whether or not a certain use of a term causes confusion is irrelevant. All that matters is that you're as inflammatory as possible. You remind me of the "for the children" crowd who blow everything out of proportion and use inflammatory language and 'logic' to get everyone to agree with them.
Because you see, when you say "stealing," I have no idea if you're equating copyright infringement to actual theft (i.e. someone stole a TV) or using that stupid common definition ("You stole my idea!"). I've seen examples of both. It also doesn't help that people who don't understand copyright might very well become confused when such incorrect terminology is used.
The only thing that protects ideas are patents, not copyrights, and even patents don't technically protect ideas: they only protect apparatus or method for an invention.
Yes.
Using words like monopolies is completely wrong in the context of copyrights.
Since linking to random articles written by people you agree with is acceptable to you, you may find this acceptable.
It is not "completely wrong"; you have a monopoly over something very specific, but that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly.
I will hereby refer to all copyright proponents as child molesters. For dramatic effect, of course.
It's something you said! Here it is again, for your benefit:
No, it isn't. I said that I do not care how lightly they think of spying, not anything about their governments not existing or any other such nonsense.
Right. Except these are a matter of policy, not some fundamental human right.
They are to me. And it can be both at once.
then you're wrong and Snowden committed crimes which are likely to negatively affect you in the future in addition to whatever whistleblowing he has done.
How do you determine whether or not I think it's negative, or likely?
As for "crimes," I don't think law equates to morality, so whether he's technically a 'criminal' is uninteresting to me. But to me, they shouldn't be.
If you base your arguments on the constitutionality of the actions, and then later find out that it was, in fact, constitutional, your argument is worthless.
I never said that all of the NSA's activities are unconstitutional; that's not all that interests me. The domestic spying is definitely unconstitutional. I believe much of their other spying is immoral.
Fundamental rights are separate in my mind from the constitution.
You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse two separate issues due to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional and human rights.
You seem to think that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct.
It's irrelevant.
In fact, it's not.
So kindly shut the fuck up about it until you can communicate a reasonable point.
I have. Here is a long series of steps that lays out how what I want could be accomplished: 1) Don't spy on innocent people unless you have a damn good reason to think they're not innocent, and in the case of citizens, have a warrant.
The end. It's just a question of whether or not to take certain actions.
Your long-winded drivel was unnecessary.
It's ridiculous that you would even think to do that.
You have quite the imagination, to argue with someone who doesn't exist. But may I please ask you to keep it to yourself, rather than responding to me as if I'm the one you're arguing with?
Calling me authoritarian just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this.
Calling me a 12 year old just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this, authoritarian asshole.
It's not just an enforced monopoly, it's protection against freeloading looters
Copyright infringement is not legally considered stealing.
who, without the law around, will smash store windows and steal stuff without paying.
Not sure what that has to do with copyright. Are you parodying copyright trolls?
The disease of wanting to get paid for ones work?
Wanting to get paid for your work is fine, but only if you can find a way to make money in the free market, which is free from government enforced monopolies over ideas that promote censorship and prevent people from using their own resources to duplicate non-private (as in, nothing to do with privacy) resources.
You seem to think that people should be handed little monopolies for their specific ideas, while I disagree. What I say literally has nothing to do with insulting people for wanting to get paid. How they try to make money is what is relevant to me, as their means to that end can be moral or immoral depending on what they try to do.
Idiot he admired his guilt in public. There is no need for a trial.
There is always a need for a trial. Confessions mean little, especially in a case as complex as this.
Have you considered that a jury may decide to use jury nullification? Have you considered that laws might be struck down as unconstitutional? Have you considered anything that might happen during a trial that would differ from simply executing him? Everyone needs a fair trial.
Also, your definition of "traitor" is silly. I know he didn't betray me or the principles this country is supposed to stand for. What he did doesn't even meet the constitutional definition, unless you interpret it as being so broad it could be applied to anyone.
Execution is not murder, idiot.
Government thugs killing people (citizens) without trial is murder.
Also, execution is morally wrong. That you advocate murder shows that you're an authoritarian asshole.
I think the chances of either getting a trial any time soon is pretty slim. All of this is hypothetical.
For different reasons, though. Clapper is a person in a position of power, and is doing things that many scumbags with power in the government agree with. These people are almost impossible to convict, short of extreme circumstances. Snowden simply ran away, and getting him while he's in a different country like Russia is difficult.
Of course, if Snowden did stand trial, a moral jury would use jury nullification to prevent him from being convicted for the 'crime' of revealing the government's immoral activities.
I think our justice system that includes jury nullification, appeals, commutations, and pardons is a good thing.
We had some good ideas to be sure, but I wouldn't call it an overall good thing, what with plea bargains being allowed, prosecutors being encouraged to prosecute people whether or not they're guilty so they can increase their rate of successful prosecutions and be rewarded for it, the fact that the rich and powerful often get slapped on the wrist when normal people would be punished harshly, the fact that (as you pointed out, I believe) jury nullification is being discouraged, the fact that the Supreme Court routinely modifies the constitution with invisible ink to make the people have fewer rights and give the government more power, and a number of other things.
So yeah, there are some good ideas here, but anyone planning on following our lead needs to take note of our many failings.
Yes, amazing that people will listen when presented with proof rather that speculation...
Speculation!? Echelon and such (Project MINARET, etc.) have been known about for some time. The NSA's egregious violations of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties didn't just start recently, and anyone who says otherwise is utterly ignorant.
I like to think that Snowden just gave us the specifics of what was happening. What he revealed, however, was not surprising to anyone who was paying attention.
You do know that that would be against the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, as well as violate the constitution, right? Yet, you don't seem to care about that. It's always funny to see people say they want to live in a free country, and yet support policies (In your case, murder without trial.) that take us in the exact opposite direction.
Maybe Snowden wanted to improve his own country and keep it from becoming like some other police state hellholes? He seems to be doing a far better job than the scumbags in the government.
And he did not just give them to Russia; he released them to a free media which released them to everyone. If you say otherwise, you're profoundly ignorant.
He is less than of a breaker of oaths than any of the higher-ups or politicians involved.
And frankly, breaking an oath that requires that you remain silent about egregious violations of the constitution and fundamental liberties is the moral thing to do; you'd be immoral not to.
The more people that use encryption, the more people that can provide cover for those who do things the government doesn't like (Which isn't necessarily immoral!) and prevent those people from being abused. If very few use encryption, those who do use encryption may be singled out and harassed.
So, how about caring about someone other than yourself? Perhaps you should also start caring about the constitution, fundamental liberties, and the ability to know what the software on your computer is doing?
Secret plans? About what? If you have secret plans that the government should be interested in, then I want them to find out about it - because unless you are planning terrorist activity, there is no reason to fear so much.
Wow. Did you seriously just use "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"... seriously? Are you retarded, or do I have to point out that hundreds of millions of people were abused and/or murdered by governments--including the US government--throughout history? If you knew, then why do you seem so confident that people who wants to keep their plans secret must be doing something immoral? History just isn't on your side, fool.
Masks are outright illegal only in some places at the moment (Which is still a huge problem and nothing that should happen in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free.). In many places, they're illegal only if you use them while committing some crime.
Free speech only applies to speech created by yourself.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Were that true, it would be constitutional for the government to punish people for holding up signs made and given to them by others. If that happens, then you have tyranny.
It's not an excuse to obtain other people's works without payment.
If your society treats government-enforced monopolies over ideas as more important than free speech, your society is diseased. Almost every country in the world is afflicted with a very serious disease.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like debating with a child.
It's like debating with someone who is in vehement disagreement with certain laws and traditions.
It's not your property.
Whatever it is stored on is your own property. You generally use your own property to transmit the information, as well. Other people use their own property to receive the information. It's all quite voluntary, and this would be the natural state of things if it were not for censorship and anti-private property laws.
But mere laws cannot stop something that seems so natural in the age of information, as well as something that is so simple to do.
the sellers would suffer financially from loss of income.
There is a difference between not gaining and losing.
If you like sticking it to people who give you stuff, you're just a selfish person.
Fortunately, it has nothing to do with sticking it to anyone. That seems futile. It would be like downloading a movie thousands of times and expecting each download to hurt the MPAA; nonsensical.
No, the physical property is cheap plastic costing between 10 and 50 cents. The IP containing files stored on that are the reason it costs $10.
That's irrelevant. In order to have permission to leave the store with the physical property, you need to pay them what they're asking for, since it's their physical property and they set the terms and conditions. They could charge three times the normal asking price for something just because they like whatever it is; it makes no difference why.
Um, no. Law enforcement has a responsibility to stick to the principles that this country supposedly aspires to.
It is their fault for doing this garbage, and the courts are also at fault for not stopping them. Saying it's one or the either is just a false dichotomy.
How does garbage like this get modded up? He should not be reporting any of this to corrupt government scumbags to begin with. If the government is violating the highest law of the land and/or conducting highly immoral activities, the people need to be informed immediately. Period. Wasting time with government thugs only decreases the chances that you'll be able to successfully leak the documents when you need to.
He is, at best, a publicity whore, but most likely a traitor
Really? Then what are all these scumbags in the government who support programs that violate the constitution and the fundamental liberties of millions of people?
It's amazing how reporting government activities that are directly opposed to the ideals to which this country is supposed to aspire makes you a "publicity whore" or a "traitor."
Also, I know that he did try to go through the 'right channel', but I think that was a bad idea on his part. What if they shut him out afterwards, got rid of him, or some other such thing, and he was prevented from being able to leak the documents? This is why you need to leak the activities of these government scumbags to the people; it's the only moral thing to do.
He would not lose "credibility" at all by not reporting this shit in secret to corrupt government scumbags; the documents would still expose the constitutional violations and immoral activities, and the people would know. So, how is that losing "credibility"?
That's a terrible fucking idea. If the government is violating the highest law of the land, then the people need to be the first to know. Trying to go the "right way" isn't the right way at all! Informing the people should happen first, because otherwise you jeopardize your mission.
So why are you complaining then?
Because, as we've seen, copyright enforcement leads to censorship and the loss of real private property rights. Censorship is the biggest issue for me; I find it 100% intolerable.
But I guess you can't because you're not talented and have no skill, or money required to create anything of value.
Interesting how you make such statements about someone you don't know. I'm a software developer, and I wouldn't make money if I didn't create anything of value. Do you just want it to be true? "You're not a 'creator'!" is either a logical fallacy or just an irrelevancy, depending on what was meant.
Are you copyright proponents too talentless and lazy to create anything of value and successfully market it in a world that had a real free market? By the way, since that would be similar to the idiotic thing you said above, that question is not serious.
LOL, you should walk into walmart, take one of their DVDs and pay them a dollar for the physical DVD but not for the files inside, (since intellectual property is worthless according to you), and if they demand the retail price
That's physical property.
Legal != moral.
Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.
If the government is doing something blatantly unconstitutional, as the NSA was, then the people need to know about it. Risking it all being swept under the rug by trying to go to the 'proper channels' is foolish for exactly that reason. The people should be the first to know what the evil scumbags in the government are doing.
I don't know who he unjustifiably betrayed, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't the ideals that this country is supposed to aspire to.
The first article is just an opinion from someone much like yourself, while the second link is a propaganda piece that only applies in very limited scenarios to begin with. You have not shown that copyright infringement is legally (i.e. by the courts) considered theft. Government agencies can say whatever they want.
By the way, we are talking about copyright infringement in general. Don't confuse "Copyright infringement is theft." with "Copyright infringement is legally considered a certain form of theft in certain situations." They differ.
Sure, it is
The first article is just an opinion from someone much like yourself, while the second link is a propaganda piece that only applies in very limited scenarios to begin with. You have not shown that copyright infringement is legally (i.e. by the courts) considered theft. Government agencies can say whatever they want.
If you derive benefit from someone's work, whether it's tangible or intangible, you have to pay their selling price, otherwise it's stealing.
It's copyright infringement.
No, wait, it's actually rape. Copyright infringement is rape. Meanings are irrelevant; whether or not a certain use of a term causes confusion is irrelevant. All that matters is that you're as inflammatory as possible. You remind me of the "for the children" crowd who blow everything out of proportion and use inflammatory language and 'logic' to get everyone to agree with them.
Because you see, when you say "stealing," I have no idea if you're equating copyright infringement to actual theft (i.e. someone stole a TV) or using that stupid common definition ("You stole my idea!"). I've seen examples of both. It also doesn't help that people who don't understand copyright might very well become confused when such incorrect terminology is used.
The only thing that protects ideas are patents, not copyrights, and even patents don't technically protect ideas: they only protect apparatus or method for an invention.
Yes.
Using words like monopolies is completely wrong in the context of copyrights.
Since linking to random articles written by people you agree with is acceptable to you, you may find this acceptable.
It is not "completely wrong"; you have a monopoly over something very specific, but that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly.
I will hereby refer to all copyright proponents as child molesters. For dramatic effect, of course.
It's something you said! Here it is again, for your benefit:
No, it isn't. I said that I do not care how lightly they think of spying, not anything about their governments not existing or any other such nonsense.
Right. Except these are a matter of policy, not some fundamental human right.
They are to me. And it can be both at once.
then you're wrong and Snowden committed crimes which are likely to negatively affect you in the future in addition to whatever whistleblowing he has done.
How do you determine whether or not I think it's negative, or likely?
As for "crimes," I don't think law equates to morality, so whether he's technically a 'criminal' is uninteresting to me. But to me, they shouldn't be.
If you base your arguments on the constitutionality of the actions, and then later find out that it was, in fact, constitutional, your argument is worthless.
I never said that all of the NSA's activities are unconstitutional; that's not all that interests me. The domestic spying is definitely unconstitutional. I believe much of their other spying is immoral.
Fundamental rights are separate in my mind from the constitution.
You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse two separate issues due to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional and human rights.
You seem to think that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct.
It's irrelevant.
In fact, it's not.
So kindly shut the fuck up about it until you can communicate a reasonable point.
I have. Here is a long series of steps that lays out how what I want could be accomplished:
1) Don't spy on innocent people unless you have a damn good reason to think they're not innocent, and in the case of citizens, have a warrant.
The end. It's just a question of whether or not to take certain actions.
Your long-winded drivel was unnecessary.
It's ridiculous that you would even think to do that.
You have quite the imagination, to argue with someone who doesn't exist. But may I please ask you to keep it to yourself, rather than responding to me as if I'm the one you're arguing with?
Calling me authoritarian just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this.
Calling me a 12 year old just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this, authoritarian asshole.
It's not just an enforced monopoly, it's protection against freeloading looters
Copyright infringement is not legally considered stealing.
who, without the law around, will smash store windows and steal stuff without paying.
Not sure what that has to do with copyright. Are you parodying copyright trolls?
The disease of wanting to get paid for ones work?
Wanting to get paid for your work is fine, but only if you can find a way to make money in the free market, which is free from government enforced monopolies over ideas that promote censorship and prevent people from using their own resources to duplicate non-private (as in, nothing to do with privacy) resources.
You seem to think that people should be handed little monopolies for their specific ideas, while I disagree. What I say literally has nothing to do with insulting people for wanting to get paid. How they try to make money is what is relevant to me, as their means to that end can be moral or immoral depending on what they try to do.
Idiot he admired his guilt in public. There is no need for a trial.
There is always a need for a trial. Confessions mean little, especially in a case as complex as this.
Have you considered that a jury may decide to use jury nullification? Have you considered that laws might be struck down as unconstitutional? Have you considered anything that might happen during a trial that would differ from simply executing him? Everyone needs a fair trial.
Also, your definition of "traitor" is silly. I know he didn't betray me or the principles this country is supposed to stand for. What he did doesn't even meet the constitutional definition, unless you interpret it as being so broad it could be applied to anyone.
Execution is not murder, idiot.
Government thugs killing people (citizens) without trial is murder.
Also, execution is morally wrong. That you advocate murder shows that you're an authoritarian asshole.
I think the chances of either getting a trial any time soon is pretty slim. All of this is hypothetical.
For different reasons, though. Clapper is a person in a position of power, and is doing things that many scumbags with power in the government agree with. These people are almost impossible to convict, short of extreme circumstances. Snowden simply ran away, and getting him while he's in a different country like Russia is difficult.
Of course, if Snowden did stand trial, a moral jury would use jury nullification to prevent him from being convicted for the 'crime' of revealing the government's immoral activities.
I think our justice system that includes jury nullification, appeals, commutations, and pardons is a good thing.
We had some good ideas to be sure, but I wouldn't call it an overall good thing, what with plea bargains being allowed, prosecutors being encouraged to prosecute people whether or not they're guilty so they can increase their rate of successful prosecutions and be rewarded for it, the fact that the rich and powerful often get slapped on the wrist when normal people would be punished harshly, the fact that (as you pointed out, I believe) jury nullification is being discouraged, the fact that the Supreme Court routinely modifies the constitution with invisible ink to make the people have fewer rights and give the government more power, and a number of other things.
So yeah, there are some good ideas here, but anyone planning on following our lead needs to take note of our many failings.
Yes, amazing that people will listen when presented with proof rather that speculation...
Speculation!? Echelon and such (Project MINARET, etc.) have been known about for some time. The NSA's egregious violations of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties didn't just start recently, and anyone who says otherwise is utterly ignorant.
I like to think that Snowden just gave us the specifics of what was happening. What he revealed, however, was not surprising to anyone who was paying attention.
You do know that that would be against the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, as well as violate the constitution, right? Yet, you don't seem to care about that. It's always funny to see people say they want to live in a free country, and yet support policies (In your case, murder without trial.) that take us in the exact opposite direction.
Maybe Snowden wanted to improve his own country and keep it from becoming like some other police state hellholes? He seems to be doing a far better job than the scumbags in the government.
And he did not just give them to Russia; he released them to a free media which released them to everyone. If you say otherwise, you're profoundly ignorant.
He is less than of a breaker of oaths than any of the higher-ups or politicians involved.
And frankly, breaking an oath that requires that you remain silent about egregious violations of the constitution and fundamental liberties is the moral thing to do; you'd be immoral not to.
While your basic point seems to be a complete straw man.
And to suggest that the government can just get all this information elsewhere is just absurd.
The more people that use encryption, the more people that can provide cover for those who do things the government doesn't like (Which isn't necessarily immoral!) and prevent those people from being abused. If very few use encryption, those who do use encryption may be singled out and harassed.
So, how about caring about someone other than yourself? Perhaps you should also start caring about the constitution, fundamental liberties, and the ability to know what the software on your computer is doing?
Secret plans? About what? If you have secret plans that the government should be interested in, then I want them to find out about it - because unless you are planning terrorist activity, there is no reason to fear so much.
Wow. Did you seriously just use "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"... seriously? Are you retarded, or do I have to point out that hundreds of millions of people were abused and/or murdered by governments--including the US government--throughout history? If you knew, then why do you seem so confident that people who wants to keep their plans secret must be doing something immoral? History just isn't on your side, fool.
Masks are outright illegal only in some places at the moment (Which is still a huge problem and nothing that should happen in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free.). In many places, they're illegal only if you use them while committing some crime.
Free speech only applies to speech created by yourself.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Were that true, it would be constitutional for the government to punish people for holding up signs made and given to them by others. If that happens, then you have tyranny.
It's not an excuse to obtain other people's works without payment.
If your society treats government-enforced monopolies over ideas as more important than free speech, your society is diseased. Almost every country in the world is afflicted with a very serious disease.