The best arguement made against that is that if you are a "supporting audience/consumer" of the "product", you are a part of the demand, which encourages the supply.
You'd not only need to provide hard scientific evidence of that claim, but it wouldn't matter if you did. Government censorship is 100% tolerable. The people at fault for raping are the rapists, and no one else.
So we maintain both systems and leave the choice up to the content creator, for the end user they have ideological choice.
Once again, can I use my own property to share copyrighted content with others? If not, then it's an infringement upon my private property and free speech rights. This response of yours is nothing but a cop-out.
I dont need to, you are the one suggesting change, the onus to prove that they *would*
Utter fucking bullshit. Copyright is unproven. It is on those who propose laws or defend unproven laws that need to present their scientific evidence. You can't just shove a law through without providing any proof that it will be effective and then claim that anyone who says the law is unproven needs to prove that it's ineffective; that's just nonsense.
I am saying live by the ideology you preach
I do. I ignore copyright 100%.
If your use of them is not 100% then you rely on the copyright system to a degree, a system you think can be abolished.
Relying or not relying on the copyright system is irrelevant. It's like telling people in dictatorships that they rely on the government, and therefore cannot want to abolish it in favor for a better system of governance. People who are surrounded by a certain system will inevitably end up seeing the results it brings, and you cannot hold that against them. But of course, you haven't proven that copyright is effective to begin with.
No because you *require* childish ad hominem attacks, I do not.
I don't think it's childish to use your own silly assumptions against you. You made assumptions about the way I think, so it is valid when I do the same to you.
If you can unequivocally *prove* your system is better then I would be convinced but remember that "morals" and "ethics" are subjective as is what you deem to be acceptable or not.
In "the land of the free and the home of the brave," freedom is absolutely more important than 'safety.'
My arguments stand on their own merits. Attacking me and telling me I supposedly rely on copyright will not debunk a single thing that I have said; it's just an ad hominem.
No what I mean is you can prove whether or not the copyleft / public domain model works, but the products of it are *mostly* junk because there is no incentive for people with talent to invest in it.
That's because our system is explicitly designed to encourage copyright (essentially everything is copyrighted by default). What would it look like without it?
By the way, this isn't only about practical benefits, but about freedom. In fact, it's mostly about freedom. Controlling my property and my speech so you can have little monopolies is unacceptable.
Then dont use copyrighted stuff, your problem is you want the products of the copyright system because the copyleft / public domain system is not adequate and produces very little of any value, the things of value and the things you want are a product of the copyright system.
Good things can come out of otherwise bad systems. Even Nazi Germany had some good aspects to it. Furthermore, throwing things away just because of the system that produced them (How do you know they wouldn't have been produced otherwise? You presented *zero* evidence.) is illogical. And expecting me to ignore content when I just told you I despise copyright is rather silly. Your logic is abysmal, and you should feel bad.
In addition, what is and is not good is 100% subjective, and I never told you just about much I use public domain products, so once again you're making faulty assumptions about me. It would be like me saying, "You want copyright because you know you're an idiot who can't market his ideas without a monopoly enforced by government thugs."
But it is ok in the software context, the software world is moving to SaaS which is even more viable with improved internet connections so then your concerns will be invalid anyway, you dont have the software, you rent it instead.
I participate in protests, vote for third parties, write to my so-called "representatives," and encourage others to do the same. I'm no MLK, but I assure you that I am not the cause of this two party shithole.
A thorn? They love you. They know that one of the two will always win, and both parties will have quite a bit of power no matter what. That's a win-win situation for them.
So release under and support creative commons / copyleft instead and avoid the content released under the ideology you despise.
I release under the public domain, which makes more sense.
It already can
Oh, really? So I can share copyrighted content with others with no legal repercussions? If not, then no, it can't. Right, my use of my own property, as well as free speech, is being restricted so that some people can have little government-enforced monopolies over data.
Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people.
I never said they were here, in this article, specifically. But I've seen many of them, and that's where I heard such ridiculous arguments to begin with.
The only one I can think of who comes close is this guy. He claimed that he himself thinks that the TSA search is reasonable and made an effort to defend it. If that's not what he was doing, then people who explain the law, as it is enforced, don't do a very good job of distinguishing themselves from individuals who think the law, as it is enforced, is good.
You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.
I can easily make that distinction when they explain themselves properly.
I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for an evil scumbag. That's why I vote based on my principles, and not just on who is 'less evil.' Productive or not, I refuse to support evil scumbags that the democrats and republicans put forth.
What are you, some kind of communist or an hippie?
Copyright (a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech and real private property rights) makes a nation more communist-like than a nation that's otherwise the same but without copyright. Let the free market decide whether or not someone succeeds and can make money from software. If they can't, then they sure as hell don't deserve the ability to stop people from copying certain data using their own equipment.
Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.
So, yes, I'm fundamentally opposed to their thinking, and yes, I will insult such people.
Class action lawsuits don't subvert the court system
No, they don't, but then again, I didn't say they did. Rightscorp's scheme is what doesn't use the court system, and their scheme is immoral.
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies?
Take that up with the copyright thugs.
And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
Take them to *court* if you want them punished. Don't just have the ISP try to force them to cough up money based on an accusation and faulty evidence. This shit should go to court, and nowhere else. That's what pretty much everyone is saying.
It might be possible to abuse, but that's no reason to ban it. I'm opposed to age of consent laws, which was the point, and why quoting that wouldn't make any difference.
Any information a company possesses on your behalf, including any codes, messages, or instrumentality necessary to brick a brickable phone, must be disclosed if the government agent has a warrant.
What does that have to do with what you quoted? He's saying that if the user truly had full control over the phone (free software & open hardware), it's rather unlikely the government (or anyone else) could simply remotely brick your phone. This has nothing to do with warrants or anything else.
Well, the government doesn't have the power to force you to do that in order for you to be able to get in a plane, either. But that won't stop TSA apologists from using one of these arguments.
He absolutely doesn't belong here, because in the land of the free there is no room to tolerate any differences of opinion.
I'm saying that he might want to move somewhere that is more to his liking. North Korea, for instance.
Wait, it's you again.
The Supreme Court has ruled that TSA security checkpoints are an obvious violation of the fourth amendment... ummm, wait a minute.
I disagree with many Supreme Court rulings.
And you know, if you were mistaken, you could've just edited that part out of your comment before you submitted it. You didn't have to write, "ummm, wait a minute." How stupid of you.
Enough of this. I've already explained myself as well as I possibly can. My definition of "unreasonable" is set in stone, as well.
You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then jumping down the throats of those who tell you they are absurd.
I haven't jumped down anyone's throats. That doesn't even fucking make any sense, you fool. How could a human fit in another human's throat? That would be quite something, and I've never seen such a thing. You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then getting angry when others point out your stupid mistakes.
But hey, let's just give the government unlimited power. Wow, suddenly it's "reasonable" to search everyone's houses at random, and entire cities are now secured areas! Therefore, it's 100% constitutional.
Then you don't exactly belong in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' now do you?
The idea that general warrants are unconstitutional, while having government agents search everyone who tries to get on a plane without even so much as a warrant merely because some people criminals/terrorists, is absolutely absurd. No, it's not "reasonable" in any way, shape or form. This issue is black-and-white, and settled. No amount of authoritarian 'logic' will show otherwise.
And the loudest critics would be those people who today are complaining about too much security in the first place.
I never asked for these unconstitutional violations of our fundamental rights on 9/11, and I sure as hell wouldn't ask for them in the future. I believe that freedom is more important than safety, and in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' I would think everyone else would, too.
So don't pretend to know what others wanted, want, or would want.
Slashdot Mirror
100% intolerable.*
The best arguement made against that is that if you are a "supporting audience/consumer" of the "product", you are a part of the demand, which encourages the supply.
You'd not only need to provide hard scientific evidence of that claim, but it wouldn't matter if you did. Government censorship is 100% tolerable. The people at fault for raping are the rapists, and no one else.
I thought you might be trying to practice being a pseudoscientist by claiming that I need prescriptions for disagreeing with you.
That was in response to another misuse of the term "communism" to mean "anything that I don't like." I just turned that around on them.
Unacceptable maybe, but tolerable?
Not tolerable.
So we maintain both systems and leave the choice up to the content creator, for the end user they have ideological choice.
Once again, can I use my own property to share copyrighted content with others? If not, then it's an infringement upon my private property and free speech rights. This response of yours is nothing but a cop-out.
I dont need to, you are the one suggesting change, the onus to prove that they *would*
Utter fucking bullshit. Copyright is unproven. It is on those who propose laws or defend unproven laws that need to present their scientific evidence. You can't just shove a law through without providing any proof that it will be effective and then claim that anyone who says the law is unproven needs to prove that it's ineffective; that's just nonsense.
I am saying live by the ideology you preach
I do. I ignore copyright 100%.
If your use of them is not 100% then you rely on the copyright system to a degree, a system you think can be abolished.
Relying or not relying on the copyright system is irrelevant. It's like telling people in dictatorships that they rely on the government, and therefore cannot want to abolish it in favor for a better system of governance. People who are surrounded by a certain system will inevitably end up seeing the results it brings, and you cannot hold that against them. But of course, you haven't proven that copyright is effective to begin with.
No because you *require* childish ad hominem attacks, I do not.
I don't think it's childish to use your own silly assumptions against you. You made assumptions about the way I think, so it is valid when I do the same to you.
If you can unequivocally *prove* your system is better then I would be convinced but remember that "morals" and "ethics" are subjective as is what you deem to be acceptable or not.
In "the land of the free and the home of the brave," freedom is absolutely more important than 'safety.'
My arguments stand on their own merits. Attacking me and telling me I supposedly rely on copyright will not debunk a single thing that I have said; it's just an ad hominem.
No what I mean is you can prove whether or not the copyleft / public domain model works, but the products of it are *mostly* junk because there is no incentive for people with talent to invest in it.
That's because our system is explicitly designed to encourage copyright (essentially everything is copyrighted by default). What would it look like without it?
By the way, this isn't only about practical benefits, but about freedom. In fact, it's mostly about freedom. Controlling my property and my speech so you can have little monopolies is unacceptable.
Then dont use copyrighted stuff, your problem is you want the products of the copyright system because the copyleft / public domain system is not adequate and produces very little of any value, the things of value and the things you want are a product of the copyright system.
Good things can come out of otherwise bad systems. Even Nazi Germany had some good aspects to it. Furthermore, throwing things away just because of the system that produced them (How do you know they wouldn't have been produced otherwise? You presented *zero* evidence.) is illogical. And expecting me to ignore content when I just told you I despise copyright is rather silly. Your logic is abysmal, and you should feel bad.
In addition, what is and is not good is 100% subjective, and I never told you just about much I use public domain products, so once again you're making faulty assumptions about me. It would be like me saying, "You want copyright because you know you're an idiot who can't market his ideas without a monopoly enforced by government thugs."
But it is ok in the software context, the software world is moving to SaaS which is even more viable with improved internet connections so then your concerns will be invalid anyway, you dont have the software, you rent it instead.
Removing control from the user is terrible.
I participate in protests, vote for third parties, write to my so-called "representatives," and encourage others to do the same. I'm no MLK, but I assure you that I am not the cause of this two party shithole.
A thorn? They love you. They know that one of the two will always win, and both parties will have quite a bit of power no matter what. That's a win-win situation for them.
So release under and support creative commons / copyleft instead and avoid the content released under the ideology you despise.
I release under the public domain, which makes more sense.
It already can
Oh, really? So I can share copyrighted content with others with no legal repercussions? If not, then no, it can't. Right, my use of my own property, as well as free speech, is being restricted so that some people can have little government-enforced monopolies over data.
Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people.
I never said they were here, in this article, specifically. But I've seen many of them, and that's where I heard such ridiculous arguments to begin with.
The only one I can think of who comes close is this guy. He claimed that he himself thinks that the TSA search is reasonable and made an effort to defend it. If that's not what he was doing, then people who explain the law, as it is enforced, don't do a very good job of distinguishing themselves from individuals who think the law, as it is enforced, is good.
You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.
I can easily make that distinction when they explain themselves properly.
I vote for people who haven't proven themselves to be evil scumbags, at least.
I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for an evil scumbag. That's why I vote based on my principles, and not just on who is 'less evil.' Productive or not, I refuse to support evil scumbags that the democrats and republicans put forth.
What are you, some kind of communist or an hippie?
Copyright (a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon free speech and real private property rights) makes a nation more communist-like than a nation that's otherwise the same but without copyright. Let the free market decide whether or not someone succeeds and can make money from software. If they can't, then they sure as hell don't deserve the ability to stop people from copying certain data using their own equipment.
You need some more practice when it comes to pseudoscience.
Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.
So, yes, I'm fundamentally opposed to their thinking, and yes, I will insult such people.
Class action lawsuits don't subvert the court system
No, they don't, but then again, I didn't say they did. Rightscorp's scheme is what doesn't use the court system, and their scheme is immoral.
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies?
Take that up with the copyright thugs.
And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
Take them to *court* if you want them punished. Don't just have the ISP try to force them to cough up money based on an accusation and faulty evidence. This shit should go to court, and nowhere else. That's what pretty much everyone is saying.
It might be possible to abuse, but that's no reason to ban it. I'm opposed to age of consent laws, which was the point, and why quoting that wouldn't make any difference.
Any information a company possesses on your behalf, including any codes, messages, or instrumentality necessary to brick a brickable phone, must be disclosed if the government agent has a warrant.
What does that have to do with what you quoted? He's saying that if the user truly had full control over the phone (free software & open hardware), it's rather unlikely the government (or anyone else) could simply remotely brick your phone. This has nothing to do with warrants or anything else.
That's explicitly doing it.
Well, the government doesn't have the power to force you to do that in order for you to be able to get in a plane, either. But that won't stop TSA apologists from using one of these arguments.
*yawn* you wish.
You might need to work on your reading comprehension.
He absolutely doesn't belong here, because in the land of the free there is no room to tolerate any differences of opinion.
I'm saying that he might want to move somewhere that is more to his liking. North Korea, for instance.
Wait, it's you again.
The Supreme Court has ruled that TSA security checkpoints are an obvious violation of the fourth amendment ... ummm, wait a minute.
I disagree with many Supreme Court rulings.
And you know, if you were mistaken, you could've just edited that part out of your comment before you submitted it. You didn't have to write, "ummm, wait a minute." How stupid of you.
Enough of this. I've already explained myself as well as I possibly can. My definition of "unreasonable" is set in stone, as well.
You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then jumping down the throats of those who tell you they are absurd.
I haven't jumped down anyone's throats. That doesn't even fucking make any sense, you fool. How could a human fit in another human's throat? That would be quite something, and I've never seen such a thing. You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then getting angry when others point out your stupid mistakes.
But hey, let's just give the government unlimited power. Wow, suddenly it's "reasonable" to search everyone's houses at random, and entire cities are now secured areas! Therefore, it's 100% constitutional.
I claim the TSA search is "reasonable"
Then you don't exactly belong in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' now do you?
The idea that general warrants are unconstitutional, while having government agents search everyone who tries to get on a plane without even so much as a warrant merely because some people criminals/terrorists, is absolutely absurd. No, it's not "reasonable" in any way, shape or form. This issue is black-and-white, and settled. No amount of authoritarian 'logic' will show otherwise.
And the loudest critics would be those people who today are complaining about too much security in the first place.
I never asked for these unconstitutional violations of our fundamental rights on 9/11, and I sure as hell wouldn't ask for them in the future. I believe that freedom is more important than safety, and in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' I would think everyone else would, too.
So don't pretend to know what others wanted, want, or would want.