In my mind I compare it to the days of sunscreen. Before sunscreen the sun provided us with a source of vitamin D synthesis and then the doctors said the sun caused cancer and so we now use sunscreen. Now the skin cancer is at a unprecedented rate even using the sunscreen. Go figure?
So you failed science and modern history? Hint: showing your ankles in public used to be an arrestable offense.
Ok, you've identified a contradiction, that health concerns are unrelated to prohibition, and yet you immediately go on to arguing that certain substances should be prohibited due to health concerns. Don't you think this is a little bit illogical? Shouldn't you immediately come to the conclusion that the prohibition of (some) mind altering drugs has absolutely nothing to do with health concerns?
It's like pondering why the Copernican model of the solar system is prohibited but the Copernican model of coinage isn't.. they both appear to have similar penmanship.
Copyright is specified in the Constitution. Drugs? Not so much.
I think you're one of these people who thinks copyright can't be abolished because the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright. That power is optional.
And while you're at it, can you get rid of Copyright too? Let's try zero copyright and zero drug prohibition for a period of n years, then do an empirical analysis to determine what harm has resulted and come up with policy that rectifies that harm. Then have another n year trial to determine if that policy is working.
Copyright doesn't work the way the RIAA would like it to work. Unfortunately, the court system doesn't work the way any sane person would like it to work, either.
Giving out monopolies powers was never a good idea. It was suffered because the benefit was considered greater than the harm. The RIAA is just making it painfully obvious that this is no longer the case.
uh huh. I went through university in the late 90s, significantly after the peak of MUDing. The MUD playership was something like 100% of the first years and dropped off to something like 50% by third year. From what my younger friends tell me, that's still the case. MUDs are a fundamentally different kind of time wasting to WoW and other MMOs. They've always been popular, and they always will be.
Indeed. What exactly are they threatening to sue them for? Contributory copyright infringement? Guess what? Amazon isn't the copyright holder of many (any?) of these works. They have no standing.
I was more thinking of having extra senses added. No need to remove my healthy eyes, just give me a piggyback link to the visual cortex and I can hook into any camera on the market.. or virtual world. Same for output.
Eventually you might get to a direct brain-computer interface that healthy people (like me) will want to get installed.
Re:don't try to draw too many real world analogies
on
Who Protects the Internet?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you want the cyberspace equivalent of a national army, you're just asking to have lots of power taken away from you and given to someone else.
All those spammers building botnets, eventually, they're going to become "security companies". Nice web site you've got there, it'd be a shame if no-one could get to it. Once they start collecting taxes from a large enough group of people, they become a "legitimate" police force. After all, they don't want anyone else building a bigger botnet than theirs.
Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.
Actually, the idea is that the clean feed for kids will be opt in. The controversy is that apparently there will be mandatory filtering for "offensive" material.. which includes anything that would be X rated (which is only available in the ACT and NT) or refused classification (NC). Particularly, this includes any porn where the participants are engaged in sex (rather than just pretending to be).. aka, all hardcore.
The problem is that it is illegal to sell a film in Australia without a classification, and that the Classification Board has the right, which it exercises often, to refuse classification. This effectively bans films which are considered "offensive".
My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.
Actually. The government's assumption is that reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn and other "offensive" material. You disagree? Oh, you're just being unreasonable.
This is what decades of tolerating film and media classification has done to us.
Only the ISPs are against voluntary filtering at the ISP level.. because it will cost them money to implement. It's a bit sad that my country seems to be populated by people who are afraid of seeing "the wrong thing" on the Internet, and it's even more sad that our government panders to them. But, so long as it remains voluntary, this is just typical overreaching government regulation. I'm sure there will be no "trial" of non-voluntary enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should my health choices be a matter of law? If I wanna eat (what you consider) poison now and then, that's my concern.
In my mind I compare it to the days of sunscreen. Before sunscreen the sun provided us with a source of vitamin D synthesis and then the doctors said the sun caused cancer and so we now use sunscreen. Now the skin cancer is at a unprecedented rate even using the sunscreen. Go figure?
So you failed science and modern history? Hint: showing your ankles in public used to be an arrestable offense.
Ok, you've identified a contradiction, that health concerns are unrelated to prohibition, and yet you immediately go on to arguing that certain substances should be prohibited due to health concerns. Don't you think this is a little bit illogical? Shouldn't you immediately come to the conclusion that the prohibition of (some) mind altering drugs has absolutely nothing to do with health concerns?
It's like pondering why the Copernican model of the solar system is prohibited but the Copernican model of coinage isn't.. they both appear to have similar penmanship.
Oh dear. This is not constitutional law 101.
Copyright is specified in the Constitution. Drugs? Not so much.
I think you're one of these people who thinks copyright can't be abolished because the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright. That power is optional.
And while you're at it, can you get rid of Copyright too? Let's try zero copyright and zero drug prohibition for a period of n years, then do an empirical analysis to determine what harm has resulted and come up with policy that rectifies that harm. Then have another n year trial to determine if that policy is working.
The difference being, he had the balls to put his name to his slur.
Anonymous Coward indeed.
Copyright doesn't work the way the RIAA would like it to work. Unfortunately, the court system doesn't work the way any sane person would like it to work, either.
Giving out monopolies powers was never a good idea. It was suffered because the benefit was considered greater than the harm. The RIAA is just making it painfully obvious that this is no longer the case.
Guilty until proven innocent?
The children are right to laugh at you Ralph.
It's a civil matter. Learn the difference.
uh huh. I went through university in the late 90s, significantly after the peak of MUDing. The MUD playership was something like 100% of the first years and dropped off to something like 50% by third year. From what my younger friends tell me, that's still the case. MUDs are a fundamentally different kind of time wasting to WoW and other MMOs. They've always been popular, and they always will be.
That was a long way of saying that you don't know what you are talking about. There's another way you can say that:
Indeed. What exactly are they threatening to sue them for? Contributory copyright infringement? Guess what? Amazon isn't the copyright holder of many (any?) of these works. They have no standing.
Of course, there is that trademark issue ;)
I was more thinking of having extra senses added. No need to remove my healthy eyes, just give me a piggyback link to the visual cortex and I can hook into any camera on the market.. or virtual world. Same for output.
Eventually you might get to a direct brain-computer interface that healthy people (like me) will want to get installed.
If you want the cyberspace equivalent of a national army, you're just asking to have lots of power taken away from you and given to someone else.
All those spammers building botnets, eventually, they're going to become "security companies". Nice web site you've got there, it'd be a shame if no-one could get to it. Once they start collecting taxes from a large enough group of people, they become a "legitimate" police force. After all, they don't want anyone else building a bigger botnet than theirs.
Maybe for new customers. But they can't do that to existing customers.. it's a violation of contract.
Meh. The question really should be "Who protects the Internet from being used as a military asset?" Cause that's all this guy is talking about.
Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.
Actually, the idea is that the clean feed for kids will be opt in. The controversy is that apparently there will be mandatory filtering for "offensive" material.. which includes anything that would be X rated (which is only available in the ACT and NT) or refused classification (NC). Particularly, this includes any porn where the participants are engaged in sex (rather than just pretending to be).. aka, all hardcore.
The problem is that it is illegal to sell a film in Australia without a classification, and that the Classification Board has the right, which it exercises often, to refuse classification. This effectively bans films which are considered "offensive".
My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.
Is this the retarded "common carrier" myth in a negative form? We don't have that kind of stuff in Australia.
That's what I said.
You say this like it's a new thing. The Classification Board has been censoring stuff for decades.
Actually. The government's assumption is that reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn and other "offensive" material. You disagree? Oh, you're just being unreasonable.
This is what decades of tolerating film and media classification has done to us.
Only the ISPs are against voluntary filtering at the ISP level.. because it will cost them money to implement. It's a bit sad that my country seems to be populated by people who are afraid of seeing "the wrong thing" on the Internet, and it's even more sad that our government panders to them. But, so long as it remains voluntary, this is just typical overreaching government regulation. I'm sure there will be no "trial" of non-voluntary enforcement.