That may be, but crap or not - I say they still deserve publicity if they are willing to stand up to Government censorship.
Even if profit is their real motive, it's a gamble - remember that this isn't about age ratings (like in every other western country where they don't have such stupid censorship laws), the current situation is that no adult can legally buy the game.
And some MPs think things should go further - a recent proposed bill suggested allowing MPs to overrule the BBFC when it approves media for release, if they decide that the material is unsuitable for us adults to view.
If you have responsibilities, do they share your ethical high ground (even if they are below the age of consent)?
And when you can't legally take a job because of a non-compete contract, or your previous contract claims IP over software you are now trying to sell, or a new business you are starting up, or perhaps your company lays you off because posting something on your website constitutes distributing "their" IP, similarly, make sure you remember your responsibilities.
It's not about some hypothetical philosophical ethical high ground - it's about real issues.
So because some (I doubt it's all) midteens put all their details on there, this means no one cares about privacy?
TFA suggests that people do care about privacy on Facebook, and I'll take that as more reliable evidence than a few comments on a blog where social networking sites are, for some reason, looked down upon.
Suppose that the US FDA allowed companies to sell dangerous foods, but put a big honking label on them that says "OMG! THIS WILL KILL YOU DO NOT EAT IT!" I bet 75% of parents would say that they are concerned that they might be buying deadly poisonous foods, but don't have time to check the labels.
1. Violent computer games are fiction, and don't kill.
2. It is entirely legal to sell many substances that will kill you if eaten, the problem and danger is in labelling such a substance as "food", which would be misleading advertising.
And if two parents can't agree what is right for a child - I don't see how an entire nation can agree, so that's all the more reason to leave it to the parents and not have a nanny state ban games for everyone.
RTFS. It's not the people running the IRC server who are distributing the content, it's 3rd parties who do not have permission to do so. Even if it's not explicitly stated in the TOS, a court would most likely rule that an IRC server is allowed to send your content to other members (just like Slashdot is allowed to publish this comment), because that's what the person clearly intends. But that doesn't mean it's free for anyone to redistribute.
Or are you trying to perpetuate the "If I can download it from a webpage, it must be okay to distribute" myth?
but LJ will always be trying to shoehorn blogging and social networking into the same box.
And it works - I don't want a "social networking site" on its own, because it seems all there is to do is set up a profile and "add friends". I don't want a standalone blog, because it's a right pain for anyone to read it (RSS helps, but few people are using RSS readers), let alone things like setting it so that only certain people can see certain posts or leave comments (no one wants to have to have a login for every single blog they visit).
I agree - I can understand getting rights if it's something you've written and then gone to a company. But I don't see why writers employed by a company aren't treated as working "for hire". I don't get rights or royalties for the software I write for my company - because I get a steady salary instead.
Maybe we need to have a "Geeks Guild" - just think of the effects on the country if we all went on strike...
often first of all having to dub it. That this takes time is a given
Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway.
I'm not sure why we should have sympathy for the hard work they put in dubbing it, when you say you prefer the English versions anyway? If those networks aren't giving what their customers want, when MTV can, that's tough.
People who want the dubbed versions won't be affected by this. People who want the English versions will get what they want. Or should the latter group be forced to watch the dubbed versions, so the network companies can make more money?
And why is there a problem complaining about the complainers? Do one persons right to complain trump another's right? Aren't the people complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining over Youtube doing just the same? Is there a double standard or is complaining just a normal past time for people?
Sure, you're allowed to complain about the complainers. I was just complaining about the people complaining about the complainers.
I know many home users who browse the web and write email, do they care that their emails are travelling via someone else's servers? Not really, because they do that already.
True, though I think there's still a difference between emails, and every private document you have, including personal/private material that they wouldn't email.
Also, one hopes that in most cases email is not kept around - yes we can't guarantee it, but this is likely if only because of the costs of doing so.
Consider the opposition to suggested Government laws about requiring ISPs to store email, or Google's "your email is never deleted".
If your concerned about privacy, don't use internet/telephony service provided by someone else, or at the very least encrypt all your communications. The trouble with this is, you'l have a very limited subset of people you can talk with!
I only have to tell the person I want to send encrypted info to download PGP or whatever, and thankfully the people I want to talk with aren't complete muppets, and can manage to do that.
Also, this is another argument about why email is different - people take the risk of using email despite privacy concerns, because there isn't much choice if you want to talk to people. But it doesn't then follow that you should put all of your information online, when in that case, private alternatives do exist.
One thing I like - if I'm understanding it correctly - is that this is a system used against new laws, but not to introduce new laws.
The bad problems with direct democracy are when bad laws are introduced - this could mean that the majority persecute minorities, or as you say, a vocal minority gets to manipulate the laws whilst an apathetic majority lets them.
But if this as an additional way to block new laws coming through, then that seems a much better way of doing it - passing a referundum would be a necessary condition for new law, but not a sufficient condition.
(Although one question I would have is how "new law" is defined - is this simply where previously the action was legal? If this applies to law amendments, which sometimes try to correct existing bad laws, then that wouldn't be a good thing.)
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Who claimed that anything was illegal? Are we only allowed to complain about illegal things, and not allowed to discuss the ethics of legal actions?
There is nothing in Facebook, Myspace or Orkut that I couldn't have done with my own web page, blog, scripts, etc. as far back as the mid-90s. They've just packaged it and put a name on it (and probably filed patents on it for all I know) for "the masses".
So what are you doing here posting on Slashdot? Surely you know how to write your own webpage and forum?
Answer: as a non-nerd, you're willing to pay about as much as a nerd is willing to pay for $USELESS_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM. (Fill in that var with something you don't like. Maybe it's the war in Iraq. Maybe it's cancer cure research. Maybe it's tobacco farm subsidies. Surely there's something the government spends money on that you don't feel is worth the expense.)
So given that we do spend money on all those things, why should this be any different?
Somehow I think material suited to those tastes is unlikely to promote pacific behavior.
And I would say those are claims without evidence - and you are ignoring the difference between consensual, and non-consensual acts. The former does not lead to the latter.
How does one measure "suffering" from a facial expression, anyway? Just because someone has a scared look on their face doesn't mean they are not enjoying the experience, as any viewer of horror films, or anyone on a scary theme park ride will tell you. How about we ask ourselves (or, you know, ask them) whether the person is _actually_ suffering, and not what they look in the film? By that logic, all films that show an actor suffering or being "miserable" are bad.
Depends what you mean by violent - much of it is nonetheless depicted as consensual, unlike ordinary violent material like films or computer games. Not that I'd advocate showing it to children - but nonetheless it seems to be demonised more just because it involves sex (here in the UK, they are about to criminalise possession of such images, even if staged with consensting adults and the acts are depicted as consensual...)
And yes, I agree on the religion front. It's sad that it's only certain taboo things ever get restricted or banned on the "but it causes harm" claims, especially given that it's often religious people pushing for these restrictions.
And, even if violent games were as dangerous as smoking - to be consistent, it would just mean no playing such games for children or in public, but that there should be no restriction on sales to adults.
I mean, these days there seems to be more attempts of adult censorship, than to criminalise smoking - so if anything, people who want to criminalise smoking should be producing studies that say "Smoking almost as dangerous as playing computer games"...
Prosecuting MP3 downloaders = bad Prosecuting GPL violators = good
It's more the scale of it - an individual making a copy of something, vs someone distributing something for profit.
If there was an article about someone selling pirated copies of a song, especially one where they tried to pass it off as their own work, or perhaps a case where Sony IP was used in a GPL product without permission, I doubt there'd much sympathy.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be, but crap or not - I say they still deserve publicity if they are willing to stand up to Government censorship.
Even if profit is their real motive, it's a gamble - remember that this isn't about age ratings (like in every other western country where they don't have such stupid censorship laws), the current situation is that no adult can legally buy the game.
And some MPs think things should go further - a recent proposed bill suggested allowing MPs to overrule the BBFC when it approves media for release, if they decide that the material is unsuitable for us adults to view.
If you have responsibilities, do they share your ethical high ground (even if they are below the age of consent)?
And when you can't legally take a job because of a non-compete contract, or your previous contract claims IP over software you are now trying to sell, or a new business you are starting up, or perhaps your company lays you off because posting something on your website constitutes distributing "their" IP, similarly, make sure you remember your responsibilities.
It's not about some hypothetical philosophical ethical high ground - it's about real issues.
And if studies show that excessively violent media is harmful to children should it just be ignored?
I don't care what happens for children, but the problem is politicians trying to criminalise images for _adults_ (which is an issue here in the UK).
So because some (I doubt it's all) midteens put all their details on there, this means no one cares about privacy?
TFA suggests that people do care about privacy on Facebook, and I'll take that as more reliable evidence than a few comments on a blog where social networking sites are, for some reason, looked down upon.
Suppose that the US FDA allowed companies to sell dangerous foods, but put a big honking label on them that says "OMG! THIS WILL KILL YOU DO NOT EAT IT!" I bet 75% of parents would say that they are concerned that they might be buying deadly poisonous foods, but don't have time to check the labels.
1. Violent computer games are fiction, and don't kill.
2. It is entirely legal to sell many substances that will kill you if eaten, the problem and danger is in labelling such a substance as "food", which would be misleading advertising.
And if two parents can't agree what is right for a child - I don't see how an entire nation can agree, so that's all the more reason to leave it to the parents and not have a nanny state ban games for everyone.
RTFS. It's not the people running the IRC server who are distributing the content, it's 3rd parties who do not have permission to do so. Even if it's not explicitly stated in the TOS, a court would most likely rule that an IRC server is allowed to send your content to other members (just like Slashdot is allowed to publish this comment), because that's what the person clearly intends. But that doesn't mean it's free for anyone to redistribute.
Or are you trying to perpetuate the "If I can download it from a webpage, it must be okay to distribute" myth?
but LJ will always be trying to shoehorn blogging and social networking into the same box.
And it works - I don't want a "social networking site" on its own, because it seems all there is to do is set up a profile and "add friends". I don't want a standalone blog, because it's a right pain for anyone to read it (RSS helps, but few people are using RSS readers), let alone things like setting it so that only certain people can see certain posts or leave comments (no one wants to have to have a login for every single blog they visit).
In what way is it "shoehorned"?
and whether I can use it for commercial purposes
If it's Open Source, the answer will always be yes, by definition.
I'm not sure what you mean by "GPL virus".
I agree - I can understand getting rights if it's something you've written and then gone to a company. But I don't see why writers employed by a company aren't treated as working "for hire". I don't get rights or royalties for the software I write for my company - because I get a steady salary instead.
Maybe we need to have a "Geeks Guild" - just think of the effects on the country if we all went on strike...
Whilst I can see the networks being annoyed,
often first of all having to dub it. That this takes time is a given
Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway.
I'm not sure why we should have sympathy for the hard work they put in dubbing it, when you say you prefer the English versions anyway? If those networks aren't giving what their customers want, when MTV can, that's tough.
People who want the dubbed versions won't be affected by this. People who want the English versions will get what they want. Or should the latter group be forced to watch the dubbed versions, so the network companies can make more money?
And why is there a problem complaining about the complainers? Do one persons right to complain trump another's right? Aren't the people complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining over Youtube doing just the same? Is there a double standard or is complaining just a normal past time for people?
Sure, you're allowed to complain about the complainers. I was just complaining about the people complaining about the complainers.
Yes, but most people switching to the NT kernel went from Me to XP, not from 9x to 2000, which is presumably what he means by the leap.
I know many home users who browse the web and write email, do they care that their emails are travelling via someone else's servers? Not really, because they do that already.
True, though I think there's still a difference between emails, and every private document you have, including personal/private material that they wouldn't email.
Also, one hopes that in most cases email is not kept around - yes we can't guarantee it, but this is likely if only because of the costs of doing so.
Consider the opposition to suggested Government laws about requiring ISPs to store email, or Google's "your email is never deleted".
If your concerned about privacy, don't use internet/telephony service provided by someone else, or at the very least encrypt all your communications. The trouble with this is, you'l have a very limited subset of people you can talk with!
I only have to tell the person I want to send encrypted info to download PGP or whatever, and thankfully the people I want to talk with aren't complete muppets, and can manage to do that.
Also, this is another argument about why email is different - people take the risk of using email despite privacy concerns, because there isn't much choice if you want to talk to people. But it doesn't then follow that you should put all of your information online, when in that case, private alternatives do exist.
One thing I like - if I'm understanding it correctly - is that this is a system used against new laws, but not to introduce new laws.
The bad problems with direct democracy are when bad laws are introduced - this could mean that the majority persecute minorities, or as you say, a vocal minority gets to manipulate the laws whilst an apathetic majority lets them.
But if this as an additional way to block new laws coming through, then that seems a much better way of doing it - passing a referundum would be a necessary condition for new law, but not a sufficient condition.
(Although one question I would have is how "new law" is defined - is this simply where previously the action was legal? If this applies to law amendments, which sometimes try to correct existing bad laws, then that wouldn't be a good thing.)
I've reread the OP, and I'm trying to see where he claims this is against the constitution?
The word "Censorship" still applies whether or not it's done by the Government, and whether or not they have a right to do it.
And sure, they have a "right" to do it. Other people have a right to criticise those actions.
I mean, Microsoft have a right to release Vista, that doesn't stop people here complaining about it all the time!
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Who claimed that anything was illegal? Are we only allowed to complain about illegal things, and not allowed to discuss the ethics of legal actions?
There is nothing in Facebook, Myspace or Orkut that I couldn't have done with my own web page, blog, scripts, etc. as far back as the mid-90s. They've just packaged it and put a name on it (and probably filed patents on it for all I know) for "the masses".
So what are you doing here posting on Slashdot? Surely you know how to write your own webpage and forum?
Answer: as a non-nerd, you're willing to pay about as much as a nerd is willing to pay for $USELESS_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM. (Fill in that var with something you don't like. Maybe it's the war in Iraq. Maybe it's cancer cure research. Maybe it's tobacco farm subsidies. Surely there's something the government spends money on that you don't feel is worth the expense.)
So given that we do spend money on all those things, why should this be any different?
The whole manned space program from mercury to apollo cost $25 billion.
Which is $135 billion in 2006 dollars - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation too, whilst you're there.
That would also make the Saturn V cost over $500 million.
costs billions in health care at the taxpayers expense.
Yes, taxpayers which are the smokers, who pay lots of tax when they smoke.
(Can you show that the cost in health care is greater than the money smokers pay in tax?)
but it's not light entertainment to me.
You could - not look at it.
Somehow I think material suited to those tastes is unlikely to promote pacific behavior.
And I would say those are claims without evidence - and you are ignoring the difference between consensual, and non-consensual acts. The former does not lead to the latter.
How does one measure "suffering" from a facial expression, anyway? Just because someone has a scared look on their face doesn't mean they are not enjoying the experience, as any viewer of horror films, or anyone on a scary theme park ride will tell you. How about we ask ourselves (or, you know, ask them) whether the person is _actually_ suffering, and not what they look in the film? By that logic, all films that show an actor suffering or being "miserable" are bad.
Depends what you mean by violent - much of it is nonetheless depicted as consensual, unlike ordinary violent material like films or computer games. Not that I'd advocate showing it to children - but nonetheless it seems to be demonised more just because it involves sex (here in the UK, they are about to criminalise possession of such images, even if staged with consensting adults and the acts are depicted as consensual...)
And yes, I agree on the religion front. It's sad that it's only certain taboo things ever get restricted or banned on the "but it causes harm" claims, especially given that it's often religious people pushing for these restrictions.
And, even if violent games were as dangerous as smoking - to be consistent, it would just mean no playing such games for children or in public, but that there should be no restriction on sales to adults.
I mean, these days there seems to be more attempts of adult censorship, than to criminalise smoking - so if anything, people who want to criminalise smoking should be producing studies that say "Smoking almost as dangerous as playing computer games"...
Prosecuting MP3 downloaders = bad
Prosecuting GPL violators = good
It's more the scale of it - an individual making a copy of something, vs someone distributing something for profit.
If there was an article about someone selling pirated copies of a song, especially one where they tried to pass it off as their own work, or perhaps a case where Sony IP was used in a GPL product without permission, I doubt there'd much sympathy.