wow.. you really don't get it do you? The exact argument you just made for a "serial killer simulator" was made by Jack Thompson for his "cop killer simulator", the only difference is the audience. According to your logic there's something wrong with the people who watch Dexter.
It's not your cup of tea, great, good for you, go back to watching football and leave other people alone.
That's why I chose them. I wasn't trying to set up straw men that I could then push down, I was trying to show that it is possible to make perfectly good arguments for banning all speech and only be rejecting the suggestion of banning any speech can you maintain free speech.
If I somehow begin spreading movies, using paid actors acting of their own free will, declaring the inferiority of "niggers," while not necessarily doing anything violent, most people would complain.
And rightfully so, but to ban the production of such films would be against the concept of freedom of speech. Ironically, self-censorship is exactly what has caused the withering away of such stereotyping.. yet your professor's argument is that self-censorship is something we should avoid, and do so at the expense of freedom of speech. Overcoming fear and peer pressure has always been a barrier to saying anything worth saying and without free speech protection we're just adding another barrier. The most effective measure to speech you don't like is not banning it, but speaking out against it.
And I do realize that the intellectual giants behind a lot of this stuff are 24-year-old kids for whom video games and Taco Bell are still Very Important elements of their lives.
Says the guy with the 6 digit ID.
Nice attempt at a troll though, keep working on it.
His point was, if this pornographic material spreads the ideology that women are sexual objects existing only for men's pleasure, which causes women to self-censor themselves and their ideas due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
Sorry, I missed that. Can you explain the argument more? Cause all I'm seeing here is the old "frame it the way I see it, then ban it" bullshit that you criticized earlier in your comment.
Example: If a carnivore diet spreads the ideology that animals exist only for human consumption, which causes vegetarians to self-censor themselves and their ideas due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
Example: If football spreads the ideology that physical violence is something men should be willing to tolerate and causes them to self-censor their outrage and appeal for legislative relief due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
The argument is that if any activity is effective at spreading some perceived negative idea then it should be banned. So give me the activity you want banned and I'll frame you an negative idea you can use to attack it.
Wow, you're the second guy today who has presented the "everyone on Slashdot" fallacy. What's hard to understand here? There's a wide cross section of people on Slashdot. We all hold different opinions. Those of us who hold similar opinions often hold them to differing degrees. That's what makes it so interesting.
Interesting how less slick he is when he isn't on stage, eh?
Such an accomplished performer could put together a good script for himself and present it effectively, but he thankfully chooses just to honestly present a talk-to-the-camera opinion.
What's really funny about that part of the license is that it really isn't saying anything. It's like a statement of fact. They might as well have added "If you eat too many bananas you'll get a tummy ache". They make no requirements or restrictions. It's unsolicited legal advice at best.
Section 11 even ends in:
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
Google knows this which is why they're saying "butt out" to all the arm chair lawyers out there.
For a start, much as trolls such as yourself would like to portray Slashdot as being a group mind with a single opinion, that simply isn't the case. There's people on here who think copyright is great, there's people on here who think copyright is completely morally repugnant and there's people on here who sit somewhere in the middle suggesting that copyright is just "broken". But, as I happen to be in the group of people who think copyright is morally wrong, allow me to explain my position, and please accept that it is solely my own position and doesn't necessarily represent the views of others on this site. I, indeed, believe Google should be free to do with the FFMpeg code whatever the hell they want, regardless of what the LGPL, copyright law or patent law says. Until they actually cause physical harm to another person (and I have no idea how they'd go about doing that with the distribution of code) I say their actions are moral. However, my personal opinion of copyright law and patent law is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. We're talking about what Google are legally allowed to do.. not what they are morally obliged to do. I didn't make any statements about their moral obligations, nor would I, as I think what they're doing is morally fine.
If copyright law is wrong, then nobody has to follow the GPL. You can't pick and choose which parts of copyright you want to serve you.
Morally? No. Legally? Well that really depends on the copyright owners.. clearly they applied the LGPL to their code for a reason.. if they didn't intend to enforce their license then it was just pointless. It's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about Google's legal obligations without implying anything about their moral obligations. But seeing as some people are confused about this, I hope specifically stating my opinion of their moral obligations has cleared it up.
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library
See that word "if"? The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.
Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any legal standing? So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.
I have Freelancer installed on my PC.. The CD is around here somewhere, but yes, I NOCD cracked it (myself). I've played it through about 20 times and I'll continue to do so. I think this is because my generation (X) were brought up with the NES and games that didn't suck, not these multi-million dollar movie wannabes.
I've tried about 10 times to get interested in BRL-CAD. It's just so awesome in theory, and then you run into the cruft and back away slowly. tcl-tk? I don't have that much hair left. I think the last time I looked at it I just gave up on the editor and hacked the ascii version of the.g files directly. Now they're talking about getting rid of the g2asc and asc2g tools because you don't need them to convert between platforms anymore. If you just wanna make raytraced images you're better off going with POVRay but if you want to do, ya know, CAD type stuff, like measuring how much stress you can put on a component before it breaks, one has to brave the twisty passages of outdated technologies and documentation.
Great, so take a system with the motto of "you got here first and have paid" and make it the basis of an identification system. Think about that. If you went to the DMV and said "Hey, can I have a license for 'Steve Jobs'?" should they reply with "Let me just see if that name is taken yet? Nope, here ya go!" or should they say "Are you Steve Jobs?"
The problem is that there are SSL cert providers who will happily hand over valid certs to anyone with a credit card, and browsers are configured to automatically trust these bozos. And the ones that are actually diligent in checking credentials will happily hand over username/password for web administration of the domain to anyone who knows the date of birth of the current registrant.
The argument that you posit that the publishers are using does not in any way, however, apply to console games and yet they're still trying to bully the resellers on that issue too.
Give it time. Sony and Microsoft will no doubt provide them with some DRM.
I buy used PC games because the "minimum requirements" written on the box are 1) bullshit and 2) more than any machine I will own for the next 2 years.
I completely agree with you but their argument is simple: people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).
They can't stop the NOCD cracks. They've tried. They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy. So all they can do is whine and lobby.
One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
Yeah, I bet the name of this marketing executive was "Mr Strawman".
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, just using air would seem to make a lot more sense.
wow.. you really don't get it do you? The exact argument you just made for a "serial killer simulator" was made by Jack Thompson for his "cop killer simulator", the only difference is the audience. According to your logic there's something wrong with the people who watch Dexter.
It's not your cup of tea, great, good for you, go back to watching football and leave other people alone.
That's why I chose them. I wasn't trying to set up straw men that I could then push down, I was trying to show that it is possible to make perfectly good arguments for banning all speech and only be rejecting the suggestion of banning any speech can you maintain free speech.
If I somehow begin spreading movies, using paid actors acting of their own free will, declaring the inferiority of "niggers," while not necessarily doing anything violent, most people would complain.
And rightfully so, but to ban the production of such films would be against the concept of freedom of speech. Ironically, self-censorship is exactly what has caused the withering away of such stereotyping.. yet your professor's argument is that self-censorship is something we should avoid, and do so at the expense of freedom of speech. Overcoming fear and peer pressure has always been a barrier to saying anything worth saying and without free speech protection we're just adding another barrier. The most effective measure to speech you don't like is not banning it, but speaking out against it.
And I do realize that the intellectual giants behind a lot of this stuff are 24-year-old kids for whom video games and Taco Bell are still Very Important elements of their lives.
Says the guy with the 6 digit ID.
Nice attempt at a troll though, keep working on it.
His point was, if this pornographic material spreads the ideology that women are sexual objects existing only for men's pleasure, which causes women to self-censor themselves and their ideas due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
Sorry, I missed that. Can you explain the argument more? Cause all I'm seeing here is the old "frame it the way I see it, then ban it" bullshit that you criticized earlier in your comment.
Example: If a carnivore diet spreads the ideology that animals exist only for human consumption, which causes vegetarians to self-censor themselves and their ideas due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
Example: If football spreads the ideology that physical violence is something men should be willing to tolerate and causes them to self-censor their outrage and appeal for legislative relief due to peer pressure, fear, or general brain washing, then it must be banned.
The argument is that if any activity is effective at spreading some perceived negative idea then it should be banned. So give me the activity you want banned and I'll frame you an negative idea you can use to attack it.
Wow, you're the second guy today who has presented the "everyone on Slashdot" fallacy. What's hard to understand here? There's a wide cross section of people on Slashdot. We all hold different opinions. Those of us who hold similar opinions often hold them to differing degrees. That's what makes it so interesting.
Interesting how less slick he is when he isn't on stage, eh?
Such an accomplished performer could put together a good script for himself and present it effectively, but he thankfully chooses just to honestly present a talk-to-the-camera opinion.
It's like saying hello in Japan!
What's really funny about that part of the license is that it really isn't saying anything. It's like a statement of fact. They might as well have added "If you eat too many bananas you'll get a tummy ache". They make no requirements or restrictions. It's unsolicited legal advice at best.
Section 11 even ends in:
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
Google knows this which is why they're saying "butt out" to all the arm chair lawyers out there.
For a start, much as trolls such as yourself would like to portray Slashdot as being a group mind with a single opinion, that simply isn't the case. There's people on here who think copyright is great, there's people on here who think copyright is completely morally repugnant and there's people on here who sit somewhere in the middle suggesting that copyright is just "broken". But, as I happen to be in the group of people who think copyright is morally wrong, allow me to explain my position, and please accept that it is solely my own position and doesn't necessarily represent the views of others on this site. I, indeed, believe Google should be free to do with the FFMpeg code whatever the hell they want, regardless of what the LGPL, copyright law or patent law says. Until they actually cause physical harm to another person (and I have no idea how they'd go about doing that with the distribution of code) I say their actions are moral. However, my personal opinion of copyright law and patent law is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. We're talking about what Google are legally allowed to do.. not what they are morally obliged to do. I didn't make any statements about their moral obligations, nor would I, as I think what they're doing is morally fine.
If copyright law is wrong, then nobody has to follow the GPL. You can't pick and choose which parts of copyright you want to serve you.
Morally? No. Legally? Well that really depends on the copyright owners.. clearly they applied the LGPL to their code for a reason.. if they didn't intend to enforce their license then it was just pointless. It's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about Google's legal obligations without implying anything about their moral obligations. But seeing as some people are confused about this, I hope specifically stating my opinion of their moral obligations has cleared it up.
Now kindly go back under your bridge.
For branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis
Reading comprehension, you failed it.
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library
See that word "if"? The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.
Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any legal standing? So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.
I have Freelancer installed on my PC.. The CD is around here somewhere, but yes, I NOCD cracked it (myself). I've played it through about 20 times and I'll continue to do so. I think this is because my generation (X) were brought up with the NES and games that didn't suck, not these multi-million dollar movie wannabes.
heh, guy disses use of "zero-g" and counters with "micro-gravity" .. it's amazing how hard the words "in free fall" are to some people.
I've tried about 10 times to get interested in BRL-CAD. It's just so awesome in theory, and then you run into the cruft and back away slowly. tcl-tk? I don't have that much hair left. I think the last time I looked at it I just gave up on the editor and hacked the ascii version of the .g files directly. Now they're talking about getting rid of the g2asc and asc2g tools because you don't need them to convert between platforms anymore. If you just wanna make raytraced images you're better off going with POVRay but if you want to do, ya know, CAD type stuff, like measuring how much stress you can put on a component before it breaks, one has to brave the twisty passages of outdated technologies and documentation.
It's like a patchset but not thought out as much.
Great, so take a system with the motto of "you got here first and have paid" and make it the basis of an identification system. Think about that. If you went to the DMV and said "Hey, can I have a license for 'Steve Jobs'?" should they reply with "Let me just see if that name is taken yet? Nope, here ya go!" or should they say "Are you Steve Jobs?"
The problem is that there are SSL cert providers who will happily hand over valid certs to anyone with a credit card, and browsers are configured to automatically trust these bozos. And the ones that are actually diligent in checking credentials will happily hand over username/password for web administration of the domain to anyone who knows the date of birth of the current registrant.
The argument that you posit that the publishers are using does not in any way, however, apply to console games and yet they're still trying to bully the resellers on that issue too.
Give it time. Sony and Microsoft will no doubt provide them with some DRM.
I buy used PC games because the "minimum requirements" written on the box are 1) bullshit and 2) more than any machine I will own for the next 2 years.
I completely agree with you but their argument is simple: people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).
They can't stop the NOCD cracks. They've tried. They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy. So all they can do is whine and lobby.
One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
Yeah, I bet the name of this marketing executive was "Mr Strawman".
Because it's civil matter and the police shouldn't be doing investigations for the copyright owners.
at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaders from a robot planet?