Do you have a link to the story you read, because the one I read was nothing like what you describe.The guy obviously just had an unusual watch and was wearing boots with insoles in them. Big deal.
If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).
Right. Because there have never been any polluters in the world with government. Thank god China has a large powerful government to prevent companies from polluting. Great system you've got there.
And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.
Who is they supposed to be. Remember that in a free society there would be no such things as corporations. No limited liability get out of jail free cards. Each company owner would be fully liable for the pollution they create. If their pollution affected me I would be free to sue them in the private court system.
I don't have time to reply to all of your points now. I will reply to more later. For now I will summarize that you are 100% wrong and are a stupid thug and thief who believes might makes right and has no problem with hurting or even killing people to take their money as long as the money is used for things you believe in.
You make money different points. I'll respond to them in order.
You weren't born into a society that was set up to increase your survival chances?
Every society increases your survival chances. That doesn't mean that society has the right to enslave you. I believe in human rights. That every human has certain basic rights and one of them is that they cannot be owned by anyone.
You didn't grow up fairly safe due to society making it so the odds of you growing up were fairly high?
This has nothing to do with the government and even if it did it doesn't mean I owe society anything because it didn't kill me.
You didn't get educated?
My parents more than paid for my education through taxes. Are you seriously going to argue that only governments can run schools? Seriously? That's a ridiculous position to take IMHO.
You didn't live on land that was stolen by society?
Even you admit that it was stolen. Therefore I don't owe anything to society for living on land that it doesn't even own.
You have never benefited by having food delivered over the road system?
Again, my parents and I have more than paid for the use of the roads through taxes and roads could trivially be paid for with electronic toll collection as governments have already discovered. Taxes aren't necessary to pay for them and even if they were that wouldn't justify thievery or thuggery to get the money to build them.
You have never benefited by being able to go to work?
I've never worked for the government so I don't see how this would apply. If anything they do not allow me to work and keep the rewards of my labor. Instead they want to enslave me. And do. The fact that I am a part time slave and not a full time one does not make me any less of a slave. I suppose people like you would have been arguing that African slaves weren't slaves either. After all they benefited from their owners gave them food and shelter. They should have been grateful and happy with their situation perhaps?
You have never benefited from having a workplace to go to?
The government did not give me the workplace. In fact they make it more difficult for people to make workplaces with their 'enslave everyone' to pay for unwanted, unneeded services organized crime scheme.
The list of benefits that you have received is huge.
Bullshit. Not a single thing you mentioned is something that the government has provided me.
If you don't want to use government services, quit working, get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.
What if I wanted to start a Libertarian society there which grew into a city. Eventually a major city. And none of the citizens paid taxes to the federal government. Would you still think they would leave us alone? I don't think so. They would want to seize the products of our labor just like any criminal organization.
The fact that you and your evil immoral society of thugs think that you own my and have a claim to my labor. You don't own me. I owe exactly nothing to you and your society.
This would certainly improve things, but it's not much of an improvement in the moral sense. Pointing your gun in someone's face, taking their money, and then asking them which pet project of yours they'd prefer to spend it on doesn 't improve the situation all that much. I would voluntarily contribute to projects like NASA, but there is nothing voluntary about taxes.
I think a better solution would be to allow everyone to live in the kind of society that they like. The government could reserve a territory, perhaps a small party of Wyoming, the least populated state in the continental US and a state that is already one of the freest, to allow for an independent free society for US citizens. The socialists and green party could also have their own independent territories. Within those areas, we would be free to organize our societies the way we saw fit.
Another possibility is for a group of Libertarians to start a settlement in Antarctica or an uninhabited island in the Southern Ocean. Not because some large country or countries won't object, but because they are unlikely to be willing to fight a real war over it.
Obviously the Socialists and Green Party could also settle in areas that are considered sufficiently undesirable that even if countries claim the territory as their own they wouldn't be willing to take heavy combat losses to defend it.
Your mistake is in believing I benefit from government services. I don't. In fact I have been seriously harmed by these "services". Physically injured by them. Also, aside from the government, I am not forced to pay for services that I am not interested in. To me, forcing someone to pay for something they are not interested in is not just wrong, but criminally wrong. It is evil. In the same way that slavery is evil and for many of the same reasons. It's like one of those guys "washing" your windshield in New York City and then asking for payment for services rendered. But you never asked for the service in the first place? You might pay for a taxi, but you wouldn't pay for someone to forcibly abduct you in their car and drive you across town to somewhere you don't want to go. Voluntarism. Getting someone to cooperate by putting a gun to their head or by telling them that you will lock them in a cage if they don't is not cooperation. It's extortion.
Incidentally, you know the reason I pay taxes. Because if I don't I will end up in prison. That is the only reason I pay them. Taxes are an indirect form of slavery. One of the reasons I've never really tried to make a lot of money in my life is that I don't fancy being a slave. So I work as little as possible. Just enough to get by. I stay in the lowest tax bracket and as a percentage of my time I spend the least amount of time being a slave. If only the African slaves had had that option.
In that case I'm guessing that you have never actually met a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian myself and I don't believe in any taxes at all. So I guess I'm an existence proof. Libertiarians object to taxes, not for practical reasons, but for philosophical ones. We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.
The biggest difference between Libertarians is how we feel that a "government" should raise money.
Limited government Libertarians mostly believe that the government should raise money via some form of voluntary contribution.
Anarcho-Libertarians mostly believe that the essential government functions can be funded via payment for services rendered. Either after the services have been rendered or in advance, or as a form of insurance. Free riders are simply ignored or forced to pay on the rare occasion that they may personally need such a service.
I have been both types at various times and I think either method is fine. Whatever works. As long as you aren't sticking the barrel of a gun in someone's face to fund your projects it's all good. Most people will claim that funding a government without the use of force is impossible. Libertarians simply disagree.
What you seem to be advocating is not simply paying MegaCorporation for something you know that you like or think you will like, but always paying for something regardless of how much you may or may not think you will like it. Like it is a moral issue. But it isn't a moral issue. By downloading some bits I am hurting no one. There is no victim. By downloading and sharing a particular pattern of bits I am exercising a basic human freedom in the digital age. It's a sort of freedom of movement really. My right to move bits around in any manner I see fit.
I really struggle with this idea of entitlement that says just because you want something you can take it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I met a model once. She was very, very beautiful. Her face was itself a great work of art. She was complaining about people staring at her. She was telling me that her model friends also found it annoying. That raised an interesting question for me. Is it wrong to look at or take photos or videos of a very beautiful girl walking around outside in public? It may or may not be legal to take her photo without her permission depending on where you live, but this isn't about legality. It is about ethics. Just by looking at a beautiful girl you are making a copy of her face in your mind. And of course photos or videos are explicit copies of her image--of the way light reflects off the countours of her face. What gives me the right to do any of that? After all it is her face. Every person who sees her is given a kind of free gift. Shouldn't she be able to decide who she considers worthy of that gift? My conclusion was that, although it is her face, and she owns it and all the rights to it, it is her choice to make it publicly available for viewing/imaging by venturing out in public without a mask or paper bag or bandages covering it. She does have the option of only allowing close friends or paying customers to view the aesthetic miracle that she was born with. I believe the freedom of beautiful women to venture out into public without being gawked at is less important than the freedom of the gawkers to look at it. It's a tradeoff, but one that I think makes sense.
In a similar way, if you object to people "stealing" your bits, perhaps it's best not to allow them out into the world in the first place, because just as people are going to look at a beautiful face unless you cover it, people are going to make copies of a digital pattern if you release it into the wild. It's just the nature of digital information. If you don't like the nature of digital information you can simply earn a living in some way that doesn't involve attempting to sell it.
Does he know you've taken his works without paying? If he doesn't, that's pretty unfair of you, isn't it.
They aren't his works anymore. He sold the rights to them to GiantEvilCorporation_00368. Once he's done that it really isn't any of his business anymore. I wouldn't think he would be in any position to complain.
So because a company takes on risk (nearly all albums lose money for the record company. Yes, really. No, not under some kind of tricky accounting. They generally really do lose actual real money), puts in all of the marketing, puts in all of the distribution, puts in all of the supply chain, you think you have a right to screw them because they have a lot more money than you approve of?
I'm not screwing them. I'm just not paying them. And, yes, I do think I have that right. I was born with certain inalienable natural rights as a human being. Rights not granted by any government. One of those rights or freedoms is to copy a bunch of bits. Whatever the benefits of GiantRecordCompany being around I don't think it is more important than basic human freedoms.
If they don't like it they are free to choose a different line of work. Somehow I don't think the executives at those companies with 10 million dollar houses and half million dollar cars are going to make that choice, but if they don't like the free nature of information then perhaps they should stop trying to sell it. And no I don't feel sorry for anyone who makes more money in one week or even one day than I make in a whole year. They are not making any less money because of me anyway.
1. the artist certainly isn't any better off with you pirating it, are they?
So what? They aren't any worse off either.
2. it's beside the point; who gave you the right to arbitrarily decide that because you disagree with their chosen business model you get to break the law and take something for free and deliberately flaunt that business model?
Rights are not something that can be given. You either believe that human beings have them or you don't. I believe I have the right to copy some bits that are out there. What's more I don't think anyone has the right to stop me. Not even the artist who created the particular pattern of bits in the first place.
I don't care about the law. I break the law every single day. Every time I get in my car. Laws are only important as practical matters: in terms of not getting caught. Ethical beliefs are important, but as we have already established I don't think copying bits is wrong.
In the rare circumstance where the artist is self-publishing I might very well choose to pay them for it. Or just donate to them. I wouldn't feel that it would be wrong or that I would be "stealing" if I didn't, but I would probably want to. I've actually done that. I've voluntary given money to a musical artist who had a "donate" button on his website. I already owned all of his CDs, but I knew that meant almost nothing in terms of the money that he actually recieved from me. By buying the CDs I was mostly paying BigFacelessCorporation. It's really a very frustrating system for both the artist and his fans. I wanted to express my gratitude to him in a more personal way by directly giving him enough money to go out to a restaurant or something. And unlike the megacorporations he wasn't rich. So the money I gave didn't seem completely meaningless. With megacorps it's like adding a needle to a haystack.
3. I bet if you actually meant what you said then you could find their contact details and send them a check for a couple of dollars...
That would be silly. You can't buy much with a few dollars these days. It wouldn't be worth the effort of driving to the bank and depositing the check, and I don't think the artist would really want to give out his home address or even have people searching for it just so they can send a check for a few bucks. But
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
But the trick is not to pay them too much for sitting on their asses doing nothing. Otherwise they may choose to retire and just live on their royalties instead of making more creative works. Not everyone is infinitely greedy.
Aren't you thinking of a Libertarian? I've never met a Republican who advocated no taxes at all. Republicans are not Libertarians any more than Democrats are socialists.
How could corporate greed be the motivation here? Verizon does not stand to gain a single customer with this scheme, but they stand to lose potentially millions or at least hundreds of thousands of customers in locations with broadband competition. They will lose me the second they try to pull this bullshit with me. I would imagine that their local competitors with similar pricing and connections speeds are going to be very happy if Verizon actually goes ahead with this insanity.
Actually he can. All he has to to is ask. I will refund every penny that he gave me. In fact, I would be perfectly willing to do even more and pay him the same thing he gets for a royalty on his work: probably no more than a nickel per unit. Or were you really referring to the actual owner of the IP, nearly always a gigantic mega-corporation?
It's not a win-win in markets where they have competition or for customers that are paying for more than their most basic tier of service. If they are serious about this I predict that they will lose over 90% of their higher tier customers. Why pay extra for all that bandwidth if all you can use it for is to make a web page load 1/10000 of a second faster?
Where I live luckily there is still a high speed non-Comcast alternative that hasn't joined forces with the MAFIAA. If Verizon ever throttles me they will lose me as a customer forever and I'll do my best to stiff them on my last bill as well.
Will have to see how great of an idea those execs think this is when their stock options drop due to losing millions of dollars as a large portion of their customer base either moves to other ISPs or downgrades their service to the most basic available.
I've never had jury duty because I don't vote, but I've always thought I would just lie when asked questions that were obviously intended to rule me out during voir dire if it were a case that interested me. Basically that would mean a case involving a victimless crime or somethng where it is just a cop's word against a defendant or any other case where I feel that for whatever reason justice is not likely to prevail. In that kind of situation I would try to give all the 'right' answers during voir dire so that I could vote to acquit regardless of how much evidence there was for a victimless crime or if there really was not enough evidence for a crime with a victim. I would also consider all police testimony to be a lie until/unless proven otherwise.
I quietly said, "fuck you" to him after he called me an asshole. That's all I did. After I saw his face turn red I knew I was in deep shit and even said out loud, "Shit!".
I wanted to run, but it was at a sobriety checkpoint with like 30 cops surrounding me and, anyway, he had a gun and I can't outrun a bullet. In fact I was in such awful condition that walking up my driveway would get me out of breath and I'm sure I couldn't have outrun 30 cops.
I can't be sure that he really was in an uncontrolled rage. Maybe that's giving him too much credit. All I can really be certain of is what he did to me and that includes crushing my larynx and cutting off my breathing for at least a minute before it seemed that another cop finally pulleed him off of me. I don't really know what he was actually thinking or feeling. He didn't say anything to me after his initial comment to me.
He didn't "strangle" me in the sense of putting his hands around my neck and squeezing. He used an "arm bar chokehold" on me which means his forearm was under my larynx while he sat on my back and pushed my face down into the pavement with what I assume was all of his strength. His aim was presumably to cut off my breathing. It worked very well at that. He applied so much pressure that he damaged my larynx. The next day all of a sudden I stopped being able to breath (in or out) for no apparent reason while sitting in front of my computer. Luckily I was able to breathe again after 30 seconds or so. It seemed very strange until I started googling about damaged larynxes and found that such a delayed effect happens sometimes from choking incidents and that people actually die from such trauma even long after the initial choking injury. That's why such chokeholds are considered the equivalent of lethal force in many jurisdictions (including mine). It's just too easy to kill someone even if you don't intend to. I think this guy may very well have intended to kill me, but of course I can't be sure. Maybe he would eventually have allowed me to breathe again even if he hadn't been pulled off of me. I obviously hadn't expected such a response from such a common generic curse and in response to one of his own no less. Only a crazy person would react that way.
They also have sobriety checkpoints. No thanks. I prefer states that actually believe in freedom and where I am free to drive without being harassed by the police unless I am doing something genuinely suspicious.
Keep in mind this is only in Utah. In my state the police don't even have the easily evaded dashcams. I assume that is because they are corrupt enough to know that it will only serve to limit their activities. When you are able to assume that juries take your world as gold in court you don't need video backup. The defendants are the ones who need it. The cops know that most jurors think "where there is smoke there is fire" and that most jurors also agree with your "the cops are the good guys" assumption. This will end up hurting them more than helping them. Just wait and see. Of course I think it is great if you live in Utah. It won't stop routine police beatings and false court testimony, but it is at least a move in the right direction.
Unfortunately in my state I could be prosecuted under surveillance laws unless I told the cop that he was being recorded. Well, at least if it records audio. If it is video only I'm not sure.
He's saying that by requiring the police to have video to back up their testimony there will be a lot less need for defense attorneys in the first place.
I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
As a recent victim of police brutality and the resulting 'cover charges' I'm not the most unbiased person, but will you at least admit that it makes you feel better about the world to think the way you do? Your view is awfully tempting for emotional reasons is it not? I mean isn't the world a nicer place without a bunch of evil, violent thugs running around with badges, falsely accusing people of serious crimes, beating the shit out of anyone they like whenever they like, and even killing people on occassion? Isn't it nicer to believe the view of cops usually shown to us on TV and film where they are basically the good guys?
I admit that not every cop is bad. In fact in my case another cop may have saved my life by pulling off the one who was strangling me in an out of control rage. The only reason I don't know for sure is my face was smashed and pinned into the pavement. Of course his saving my life wouldn't stop him from testifying against me in court and standing by the lies of the cop who wanted to kill me.
Even if only 10% of the police force are violent, evil, sadistic thugs, a rational person pretty much has to treat them all as if they are that way. How can you afford not to? 10% may as well be 100% when one of those 10 out of 100 cops is the one you cross paths with. It only makes things worse when that 10% never lose their jobs and keep comitting crime after crime and filling the courts and jails with the innocent people they falsely accuse because the other 90% never do anything about it.
They certainly won't help the falsely accused. There were probably at least 15 police witnesses in my case and not a single one stood up to tell the truth about what really happened. At least one was willing to even corroborate his false story. In fact they talked about it right in front of me, agreeing on their story while I lay bleeding on the pavement between them. They obviously had no fear of their fellow officers overhearing their plans.
Cops pretty much never rat on each other. Even when the crime in question is murder they cover for each other. Lie for each other. The truth is that the police is a gang like any other criminal gang. Their loyalty to the group pales their loyalty to the law or to right or wrong.
Judges tend to be even more pro-LEO than juries. While I was sitting in court waiting for my case to come up I watched case after case where it was a cops word against a citizen's. No evidence either way. The judge believed the cop 100% of the time.
If I hadn't had the choice of a jury trial I might have fled the country. I would have been forced to take pretty much whatever deal the prosecution offered because I didn't believe for a second that a judge would believe me over one or more cops. I'd probably be in jail right now in fact instead of posting on/.
They can't get the footage if it isn't there. If the cop is caught on video doing something illegal you can bet that he is going to try his very best to make that footage disappear and other cops are likely to cooperate. Especially buddies of the cop in question. If the recording media is local it will simply be destroyed immediately.
That ship has sailed already. In every state now I think there are rulings that support recording of the police as long as the camera is within view. Hidden recordings are still questionable in some states. Because of the risk of the cop seizing the camera and trashing it or destroying the media in some way I think hidden recording should be allowed as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a link to the story you read, because the one I read was nothing like what you describe.The guy obviously just had an unusual watch and was wearing boots with insoles in them. Big deal.
Government is the reason you are alive.
No it isn't.
If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).
Right. Because there have never been any polluters in the world with government. Thank god China has a large powerful government to prevent companies from polluting. Great system you've got there.
And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.
Who is they supposed to be. Remember that in a free society there would be no such things as corporations. No limited liability get out of jail free cards. Each company owner would be fully liable for the pollution they create. If their pollution affected me I would be free to sue them in the private court system.
I don't have time to reply to all of your points now. I will reply to more later. For now I will summarize that you are 100% wrong and are a stupid thug and thief who believes might makes right and has no problem with hurting or even killing people to take their money as long as the money is used for things you believe in.
You make money different points. I'll respond to them in order.
You weren't born into a society that was set up to increase your survival chances?
Every society increases your survival chances. That doesn't mean that society has the right to enslave you. I believe in human rights. That every human has certain basic rights and one of them is that they cannot be owned by anyone.
You didn't grow up fairly safe due to society making it so the odds of you growing up were fairly high?
This has nothing to do with the government and even if it did it doesn't mean I owe society anything because it didn't kill me.
You didn't get educated?
My parents more than paid for my education through taxes. Are you seriously going to argue that only governments can run schools? Seriously? That's a ridiculous position to take IMHO.
You didn't live on land that was stolen by society?
Even you admit that it was stolen. Therefore I don't owe anything to society for living on land that it doesn't even own.
You have never benefited by having food delivered over the road system?
Again, my parents and I have more than paid for the use of the roads through taxes and roads could trivially be paid for with electronic toll collection as governments have already discovered. Taxes aren't necessary to pay for them and even if they were that wouldn't justify thievery or thuggery to get the money to build them.
You have never benefited by being able to go to work?
I've never worked for the government so I don't see how this would apply. If anything they do not allow me to work and keep the rewards of my labor. Instead they want to enslave me. And do. The fact that I am a part time slave and not a full time one does not make me any less of a slave. I suppose people like you would have been arguing that African slaves weren't slaves either. After all they benefited from their owners gave them food and shelter. They should have been grateful and happy with their situation perhaps?
You have never benefited from having a workplace to go to?
The government did not give me the workplace. In fact they make it more difficult for people to make workplaces with their 'enslave everyone' to pay for unwanted, unneeded services organized crime scheme.
The list of benefits that you have received is huge.
Bullshit. Not a single thing you mentioned is something that the government has provided me.
If you don't want to use government services, quit working, get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.
What if I wanted to start a Libertarian society there which grew into a city. Eventually a major city. And none of the citizens paid taxes to the federal government. Would you still think they would leave us alone? I don't think so. They would want to seize the products of our labor just like any criminal organization.
The fact that you and your evil immoral society of thugs think that you own my and have a claim to my labor. You don't own me. I owe exactly nothing to you and your society.
This would certainly improve things, but it's not much of an improvement in the moral sense. Pointing your gun in someone's face, taking their money, and then asking them which pet project of yours they'd prefer to spend it on doesn 't improve the situation all that much. I would voluntarily contribute to projects like NASA, but there is nothing voluntary about taxes.
I think a better solution would be to allow everyone to live in the kind of society that they like. The government could reserve a territory, perhaps a small party of Wyoming, the least populated state in the continental US and a state that is already one of the freest, to allow for an independent free society for US citizens. The socialists and green party could also have their own independent territories. Within those areas, we would be free to organize our societies the way we saw fit.
Another possibility is for a group of Libertarians to start a settlement in Antarctica or an uninhabited island in the Southern Ocean. Not because some large country or countries won't object, but because they are unlikely to be willing to fight a real war over it.
Obviously the Socialists and Green Party could also settle in areas that are considered sufficiently undesirable that even if countries claim the territory as their own they wouldn't be willing to take heavy combat losses to defend it.
Your mistake is in believing I benefit from government services. I don't. In fact I have been seriously harmed by these "services". Physically injured by them. Also, aside from the government, I am not forced to pay for services that I am not interested in. To me, forcing someone to pay for something they are not interested in is not just wrong, but criminally wrong. It is evil. In the same way that slavery is evil and for many of the same reasons. It's like one of those guys "washing" your windshield in New York City and then asking for payment for services rendered. But you never asked for the service in the first place? You might pay for a taxi, but you wouldn't pay for someone to forcibly abduct you in their car and drive you across town to somewhere you don't want to go. Voluntarism. Getting someone to cooperate by putting a gun to their head or by telling them that you will lock them in a cage if they don't is not cooperation. It's extortion.
Incidentally, you know the reason I pay taxes. Because if I don't I will end up in prison. That is the only reason I pay them. Taxes are an indirect form of slavery. One of the reasons I've never really tried to make a lot of money in my life is that I don't fancy being a slave. So I work as little as possible. Just enough to get by. I stay in the lowest tax bracket and as a percentage of my time I spend the least amount of time being a slave. If only the African slaves had had that option.
In that case I'm guessing that you have never actually met a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian myself and I don't believe in any taxes at all. So I guess I'm an existence proof. Libertiarians object to taxes, not for practical reasons, but for philosophical ones. We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.
The biggest difference between Libertarians is how we feel that a "government" should raise money.
Limited government Libertarians mostly believe that the government should raise money via some form of voluntary contribution.
Anarcho-Libertarians mostly believe that the essential government functions can be funded via payment for services rendered. Either after the services have been rendered or in advance, or as a form of insurance. Free riders are simply ignored or forced to pay on the rare occasion that they may personally need such a service.
I have been both types at various times and I think either method is fine. Whatever works. As long as you aren't sticking the barrel of a gun in someone's face to fund your projects it's all good. Most people will claim that funding a government without the use of force is impossible. Libertarians simply disagree.
What you seem to be advocating is not simply paying MegaCorporation for something you know that you like or think you will like, but always paying for something regardless of how much you may or may not think you will like it. Like it is a moral issue. But it isn't a moral issue. By downloading some bits I am hurting no one. There is no victim. By downloading and sharing a particular pattern of bits I am exercising a basic human freedom in the digital age. It's a sort of freedom of movement really. My right to move bits around in any manner I see fit.
I really struggle with this idea of entitlement that says just because you want something you can take it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I met a model once. She was very, very beautiful. Her face was itself a great work of art. She was complaining about people staring at her. She was telling me that her model friends also found it annoying. That raised an interesting question for me. Is it wrong to look at or take photos or videos of a very beautiful girl walking around outside in public? It may or may not be legal to take her photo without her permission depending on where you live, but this isn't about legality. It is about ethics. Just by looking at a beautiful girl you are making a copy of her face in your mind. And of course photos or videos are explicit copies of her image--of the way light reflects off the countours of her face. What gives me the right to do any of that? After all it is her face. Every person who sees her is given a kind of free gift. Shouldn't she be able to decide who she considers worthy of that gift? My conclusion was that, although it is her face, and she owns it and all the rights to it, it is her choice to make it publicly available for viewing/imaging by venturing out in public without a mask or paper bag or bandages covering it. She does have the option of only allowing close friends or paying customers to view the aesthetic miracle that she was born with. I believe the freedom of beautiful women to venture out into public without being gawked at is less important than the freedom of the gawkers to look at it. It's a tradeoff, but one that I think makes sense.
In a similar way, if you object to people "stealing" your bits, perhaps it's best not to allow them out into the world in the first place, because just as people are going to look at a beautiful face unless you cover it, people are going to make copies of a digital pattern if you release it into the wild. It's just the nature of digital information. If you don't like the nature of digital information you can simply earn a living in some way that doesn't involve attempting to sell it.
Does he know you've taken his works without paying? If he doesn't, that's pretty unfair of you, isn't it.
They aren't his works anymore. He sold the rights to them to GiantEvilCorporation_00368. Once he's done that it really isn't any of his business anymore. I wouldn't think he would be in any position to complain.
So because a company takes on risk (nearly all albums lose money for the record company. Yes, really. No, not under some kind of tricky accounting. They generally really do lose actual real money), puts in all of the marketing, puts in all of the distribution, puts in all of the supply chain, you think you have a right to screw them because they have a lot more money than you approve of?
I'm not screwing them. I'm just not paying them. And, yes, I do think I have that right. I was born with certain inalienable natural rights as a human being. Rights not granted by any government. One of those rights or freedoms is to copy a bunch of bits. Whatever the benefits of GiantRecordCompany being around I don't think it is more important than basic human freedoms.
If they don't like it they are free to choose a different line of work. Somehow I don't think the executives at those companies with 10 million dollar houses and half million dollar cars are going to make that choice, but if they don't like the free nature of information then perhaps they should stop trying to sell it. And no I don't feel sorry for anyone who makes more money in one week or even one day than I make in a whole year. They are not making any less money because of me anyway.
1. the artist certainly isn't any better off with you pirating it, are they?
So what? They aren't any worse off either.
2. it's beside the point; who gave you the right to arbitrarily decide that because you disagree with their chosen business model you get to break the law and take something for free and deliberately flaunt that business model?
Rights are not something that can be given. You either believe that human beings have them or you don't. I believe I have the right to copy some bits that are out there. What's more I don't think anyone has the right to stop me. Not even the artist who created the particular pattern of bits in the first place.
I don't care about the law. I break the law every single day. Every time I get in my car. Laws are only important as practical matters: in terms of not getting caught. Ethical beliefs are important, but as we have already established I don't think copying bits is wrong.
In the rare circumstance where the artist is self-publishing I might very well choose to pay them for it. Or just donate to them. I wouldn't feel that it would be wrong or that I would be "stealing" if I didn't, but I would probably want to. I've actually done that. I've voluntary given money to a musical artist who had a "donate" button on his website. I already owned all of his CDs, but I knew that meant almost nothing in terms of the money that he actually recieved from me. By buying the CDs I was mostly paying BigFacelessCorporation. It's really a very frustrating system for both the artist and his fans. I wanted to express my gratitude to him in a more personal way by directly giving him enough money to go out to a restaurant or something. And unlike the megacorporations he wasn't rich. So the money I gave didn't seem completely meaningless. With megacorps it's like adding a needle to a haystack.
3. I bet if you actually meant what you said then you could find their contact details and send them a check for a couple of dollars...
That would be silly. You can't buy much with a few dollars these days. It wouldn't be worth the effort of driving to the bank and depositing the check, and I don't think the artist would really want to give out his home address or even have people searching for it just so they can send a check for a few bucks. But
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
But the trick is not to pay them too much for sitting on their asses doing nothing. Otherwise they may choose to retire and just live on their royalties instead of making more creative works. Not everyone is infinitely greedy.
Aren't you thinking of a Libertarian? I've never met a Republican who advocated no taxes at all. Republicans are not Libertarians any more than Democrats are socialists.
How could corporate greed be the motivation here? Verizon does not stand to gain a single customer with this scheme, but they stand to lose potentially millions or at least hundreds of thousands of customers in locations with broadband competition. They will lose me the second they try to pull this bullshit with me. I would imagine that their local competitors with similar pricing and connections speeds are going to be very happy if Verizon actually goes ahead with this insanity.
Actually he can. All he has to to is ask. I will refund every penny that he gave me. In fact, I would be perfectly willing to do even more and pay him the same thing he gets for a royalty on his work: probably no more than a nickel per unit. Or were you really referring to the actual owner of the IP, nearly always a gigantic mega-corporation?
Now that I'm rich I can afford to buy what I want.
FTFY. You won't stay rich for long throwing your money away like that.
It's not a win-win in markets where they have competition or for customers that are paying for more than their most basic tier of service. If they are serious about this I predict that they will lose over 90% of their higher tier customers. Why pay extra for all that bandwidth if all you can use it for is to make a web page load 1/10000 of a second faster?
Where I live luckily there is still a high speed non-Comcast alternative that hasn't joined forces with the MAFIAA. If Verizon ever throttles me they will lose me as a customer forever and I'll do my best to stiff them on my last bill as well.
Will have to see how great of an idea those execs think this is when their stock options drop due to losing millions of dollars as a large portion of their customer base either moves to other ISPs or downgrades their service to the most basic available.
Have you considered the idea of saving your money and just downloading the DVD instead from a non-fascist ISP? Why waste money like that?
I've never had jury duty because I don't vote, but I've always thought I would just lie when asked questions that were obviously intended to rule me out during voir dire if it were a case that interested me. Basically that would mean a case involving a victimless crime or somethng where it is just a cop's word against a defendant or any other case where I feel that for whatever reason justice is not likely to prevail. In that kind of situation I would try to give all the 'right' answers during voir dire so that I could vote to acquit regardless of how much evidence there was for a victimless crime or if there really was not enough evidence for a crime with a victim. I would also consider all police testimony to be a lie until/unless proven otherwise.
I quietly said, "fuck you" to him after he called me an asshole. That's all I did. After I saw his face turn red I knew I was in deep shit and even said out loud, "Shit!".
I wanted to run, but it was at a sobriety checkpoint with like 30 cops surrounding me and, anyway, he had a gun and I can't outrun a bullet. In fact I was in such awful condition that walking up my driveway would get me out of breath and I'm sure I couldn't have outrun 30 cops.
I can't be sure that he really was in an uncontrolled rage. Maybe that's giving him too much credit. All I can really be certain of is what he did to me and that includes crushing my larynx and cutting off my breathing for at least a minute before it seemed that another cop finally pulleed him off of me. I don't really know what he was actually thinking or feeling. He didn't say anything to me after his initial comment to me.
He didn't "strangle" me in the sense of putting his hands around my neck and squeezing. He used an "arm bar chokehold" on me which means his forearm was under my larynx while he sat on my back and pushed my face down into the pavement with what I assume was all of his strength. His aim was presumably to cut off my breathing. It worked very well at that. He applied so much pressure that he damaged my larynx. The next day all of a sudden I stopped being able to breath (in or out) for no apparent reason while sitting in front of my computer. Luckily I was able to breathe again after 30 seconds or so. It seemed very strange until I started googling about damaged larynxes and found that such a delayed effect happens sometimes from choking incidents and that people actually die from such trauma even long after the initial choking injury. That's why such chokeholds are considered the equivalent of lethal force in many jurisdictions (including mine). It's just too easy to kill someone even if you don't intend to. I think this guy may very well have intended to kill me, but of course I can't be sure. Maybe he would eventually have allowed me to breathe again even if he hadn't been pulled off of me. I obviously hadn't expected such a response from such a common generic curse and in response to one of his own no less. Only a crazy person would react that way.
They also have sobriety checkpoints. No thanks. I prefer states that actually believe in freedom and where I am free to drive without being harassed by the police unless I am doing something genuinely suspicious.
Keep in mind this is only in Utah. In my state the police don't even have the easily evaded dashcams. I assume that is because they are corrupt enough to know that it will only serve to limit their activities. When you are able to assume that juries take your world as gold in court you don't need video backup. The defendants are the ones who need it. The cops know that most jurors think "where there is smoke there is fire" and that most jurors also agree with your "the cops are the good guys" assumption. This will end up hurting them more than helping them. Just wait and see. Of course I think it is great if you live in Utah. It won't stop routine police beatings and false court testimony, but it is at least a move in the right direction.
Unfortunately in my state I could be prosecuted under surveillance laws unless I told the cop that he was being recorded. Well, at least if it records audio. If it is video only I'm not sure.
He's saying that by requiring the police to have video to back up their testimony there will be a lot less need for defense attorneys in the first place.
I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
As a recent victim of police brutality and the resulting 'cover charges' I'm not the most unbiased person, but will you at least admit that it makes you feel better about the world to think the way you do? Your view is awfully tempting for emotional reasons is it not? I mean isn't the world a nicer place without a bunch of evil, violent thugs running around with badges, falsely accusing people of serious crimes, beating the shit out of anyone they like whenever they like, and even killing people on occassion? Isn't it nicer to believe the view of cops usually shown to us on TV and film where they are basically the good guys?
I admit that not every cop is bad. In fact in my case another cop may have saved my life by pulling off the one who was strangling me in an out of control rage. The only reason I don't know for sure is my face was smashed and pinned into the pavement. Of course his saving my life wouldn't stop him from testifying against me in court and standing by the lies of the cop who wanted to kill me.
Even if only 10% of the police force are violent, evil, sadistic thugs, a rational person pretty much has to treat them all as if they are that way. How can you afford not to? 10% may as well be 100% when one of those 10 out of 100 cops is the one you cross paths with. It only makes things worse when that 10% never lose their jobs and keep comitting crime after crime and filling the courts and jails with the innocent people they falsely accuse because the other 90% never do anything about it.
They certainly won't help the falsely accused. There were probably at least 15 police witnesses in my case and not a single one stood up to tell the truth about what really happened. At least one was willing to even corroborate his false story. In fact they talked about it right in front of me, agreeing on their story while I lay bleeding on the pavement between them. They obviously had no fear of their fellow officers overhearing their plans.
Cops pretty much never rat on each other. Even when the crime in question is murder they cover for each other. Lie for each other. The truth is that the police is a gang like any other criminal gang. Their loyalty to the group pales their loyalty to the law or to right or wrong.
Judges tend to be even more pro-LEO than juries. While I was sitting in court waiting for my case to come up I watched case after case where it was a cops word against a citizen's. No evidence either way. The judge believed the cop 100% of the time.
If I hadn't had the choice of a jury trial I might have fled the country. I would have been forced to take pretty much whatever deal the prosecution offered because I didn't believe for a second that a judge would believe me over one or more cops. I'd probably be in jail right now in fact instead of posting on /.
They can't get the footage if it isn't there. If the cop is caught on video doing something illegal you can bet that he is going to try his very best to make that footage disappear and other cops are likely to cooperate. Especially buddies of the cop in question. If the recording media is local it will simply be destroyed immediately.
That ship has sailed already. In every state now I think there are rulings that support recording of the police as long as the camera is within view. Hidden recordings are still questionable in some states. Because of the risk of the cop seizing the camera and trashing it or destroying the media in some way I think hidden recording should be allowed as well.