That's one definition, but there are others. These include a company being able to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that the price of the product is set by the firm, rather than by market forces. The theoretical definition of literally only one supplier is not very relevant in the real world.
Are you seriously telling me that all the courts were wrong to convict Microsoft? Why, if only Microsoft had called on you as their defence, you'd be up there, quoting from the dictionary! Why didn't they think of that?
Standard Apple fan tactic #1: retreat to using anecdotes.
So because you had some people express interest in your PC, they, and everyone else, are now Apple lovers?
But they bought a PC because it's cheaper.
Firstly, Macs are PCs - I presume you're referring to Windows. But in other words, they would have bought an Apple PC, if it wasn't for a crucial feature that is why they don't like Apple PCs? I might as well claim that you love Windows, and the only reason you bought from Apple is because you Windows is hard to use, or whatever reasons it was you decided not to use it.
Oh, and by the way, can I help them with the fact that it's running like a dog and they can't get their computer to print over the network...
And such people have the same questions with Macs - it's just most of the time you won't hear about it, because fewer people have them. When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about their Amiga?
But it's more obvious that people are in love with Apple when it comes to iPods and iPhones. They're everywhere!
Apple fan tactic #2: conflate the Ipod (Apple's sole market leader) with other Apple products (usually the Iphone or now the Ipad).
Ipods are market leader. Iphones most certainly are not; Apple have a market share in the mobile market comparable or less than that of their share in the computer market.
You must be reading a different Slashdot to me. There's nothing but endless praise of Apple, from geeks who think that if they like Apple, everyone else must do too (actual market share shows a different story for computers and phones). And IME, this praise has increased significantly since 10 years ago.
Ipods are loved here just as much as anywhere else - and that's the one area that Apple are market leader.
Furthermore the reason why some ignorant people call mp3 players "Ipods" is because of the vast amount of media coverage and company advertising, that only promotes Ipods, so most people aren't even aware of the alternatives. You honestly think it's because people have an opinion about Woz versus Jobs?
Apple is successful in good part because "everyone else" is heartily sick of having to rely on people like you. It's hardly surprising they prefer computing devices they can use without needing the help of a techie.
Yeah, Macs are the dominant computing platform. Oh wait.
(Not to mention that you're just spreading FUD anyway. Whether it's computers, mp3 players, phones or tablets, the alternatives do not require "techies".)
Yes, I hear that from a few people. They want to be special by not following the trend. But to not buy a product just because everyone else buys it is pretty much the same emotional behaviour buying something because everyone else has it.
Yeah, reminds me exactly of the "Think Different" nonsense.
No, the geeks at/. are in love with Steve's Apple - just look at the amount of coverage and praise for the Iphone and now the Ipad. Literally daily stories, with tonnes of praise, and any criticism modded down. The days when/. Apple fans preferred Woz's Apple, or openness in general, are long gone.
As for everyone else, most of them don't give a damn about either kind of Apple.
I REALLY hate this type of attempted rebuttal. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
That's an ad hominem.
I didn't accuse anyone of holding that view, hence the question mark, and offering the alternative question. But right, you are going for "Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?" - so care to elaborate? What makes that distinction?
"I don't think people should *NOT* be allowed to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater!"
"So, you support that all speech causing any incitement be banned - whether political or not?"
Well no, I wouldn't go "WTF" - that shows poor critical thinking skills. I'd simply answer the question with "No", and then respond with how the first causes harm, and the second doesn't, if that's what I believed. Here, we're already talking about cases that don't cause harm, so it's up to you to explain what the distinction is? Please, take the time to explain it clearly, as I evidently have poor critical thinking skills, and am unable to spot the difference.
Thirdly, there's an exemption for intact copies of BBFC-classified films; without this it would theoretically be possible to be convicted for possessing Kill Bill volume 1!)
Indeed, this shows how mad the law is - they've criminalised possession of images that are available in mainstream media (South Park would be another example), and think that putting in the BBFC exception somehow makes it okay! (If these images are harmful, why doesn't this apply to a classified work? This also creates other problems - how is it going to be possible for a future work to be submitted for classification? The problem is that the film producers and anyone else in possession will be breaking the law, because they'd have possessed it before it received a classification.) The law even says that images or extracts from a classified work are not exempt!
These clauses a ripped straight from the equally-mad "extreme" porn law (Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act) that criminalises adult images. Whilst the law was being "debated" by MPs (and I use that term loosely), in response to criticism pointing out that the definitions could criminalise images in mainstream media, their response was not to revisit the definitions, but to simply whack on the BBFC exemption. This completely dumb and poorly worded law is now evidently being used as a template for yet more ludicrous laws.
And finally: "This discussion is about non-realistic images - your argument only applies to realistic fictional images." Yes, that was my point indeed:)
Okay, but:
Therefore: Real child porn and virtual (photoshopped, drawn, rendered) child porn is illegal. If that also means obviously drawn child porn is illegal, that is fine with me.
You seem keen to use this as a justification for drawn "child" porn, which last time I looked was generally not realistic.
Everybody that needs images of children of nay kind to fap should have their heads examined.
Sure, but (a) this is drawings, not images of children, (b) the law criminalises people for possession, whether or not they "fap" to it, (c) discussing on whether people needing their heads examined isn't the same as saying they should spend years in prison.
But in case of children I'll gladly make the exception
In the case of imaginary depictions of children, you mean. And yes, that says it all - "Please won't somebody think of the children". At the very least, why isn't it a defence to show that the image isn't real, which still saves the police from actually having to do work (because evidently you've decided that police having to do some work is such a burden, and it's better to throw an innocent person in prison so the police can have an easier job)?
Yes, indeed - hence I argue that we shouldn't use terms like "child porn cartoons". You're right, even if one conceded that it was reasonable to use "child porn" to describe a cartoon (which I don't), the problem is still that the laws are far broader than that.
I fear this new law will be even broader than the dubious recent "extreme porn" law, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. The worrying thing is, I don't even think that hentai is some unintended consequence of the law - I've seen references to police forces explicitly mentioning hentai, calling it to be banned (e.g., in the consultation for Section 63, Gtr Manchester Police also called for laws against hentai. And the sad thing is, all we'll see reported in the press is "man convicted of possessing child pornography", with at best a reference to cartoons or drawings (one of the problems with trying to follow the consequences of Section 63 is that details in the press are very limited, and usually follow the Government-spin definitions of "man possessing extreme pornographic images").
Now there's a point - surely, so the Governments tell us, piracy results in fewer people buying the material, and results in great harm to the producers, resulting in them becoming penniless and forced to live on the streets. As a result of piracy, there is no incentive for producers to create new material.
So surely, according to their logic, pirating child porn is good, as it will result in less child porn being created, and will harm the people trying to create it...
Indeed - the problem here is one of definitions, in particular, the way that the common definition is conflated with the legal one, something that lawmakers love to do.
Either we take the definition that child pornography is images of abuse - and therefore insist that cartoons are never child porn, by definition.
Or we use the legal definitions and acknowledge that cartoons can be considered "child porn", but argue that child porn isn't always abusive.
There's also the issue of places that criminalise images of adults over the age of consent - e.g. places like the UK where the AOC is 16, but an image of a 17 year old is "child" porn, or places where an adult image is illegal if the person merely looks under 18. Personally I'm tending towards the first approach that I list - it seems ludicrous to describe adults and fictional characters as "children", so an image of them can't be child porn.
The new UK law that criminalises fictional cartoons is a particularly laughable piece of spin - the law talks about images of a "child", and only later does it define "child" is such a broad way as to include anyone appearing under 18, or even of adults where the predominant impression conveyed is of someone under 18.
IIRC, Wikipedia also defines child pornography as being inherently abusive - I did raise the problem on the article of the more general definition being conflated with the legal definition.
Now there's an interesting point - as of 6 April 2010, fictional unrealistic images (cartoons, drawings etc) are treated as child porn ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 ). As a result, I don't dare even look at the images you describe, but yes, oral sex is covered by the law, and all that matters is the jury believe the character appears to be under 18, or the predominant impression conveyed is of someone under 18 - yes, even though the age of consent is 16 here!
So we also have the Internet Watch Foundation, which blocks any page that they think could be possible "child porn" (as they famously did with Wikipedia a while back). It's unclear to me if they have any plans to do this for the new law, but if they were, we could be seeing a lot more censorship.
(OTOH, now that the Digital Economy Act 2010 allows sites to be censored simply for being suspected of copyright infringement, we could see many more sites being blocked anyway.)
AFAIK, the status of these images in the US is unclear - IIRC, the Supreme Court overturned a previous law, but the problem is the Government keeps passing new subtlety different laws against it.
I think the OP was talking about fictional images (e.g., "lolicon")? Yes, for child pornography, there's the argument that even though the simply act of viewing or possession is a victimless crime, there are reasons to criminalise all of this. But none of this applies to people downloading fictional (especially unrealistic) images, even if they then go and download more of it.
but by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.
So you support that all images of distasteful things be banned - whether newsworthy (e.g., people being killed in war, to use a recent example), to fictional (violence and rape scenes in films) to unrealistic (cartoons that often show unrealistic violence)? Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?
On that note, I'm curious what these images are supposed to be. The image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon is surely not anything that would be considered "child" pornography, even in countries that have batshit laws against fictional images? Even if that was a real image with, you know, actual children, it wouldn't be child porn - unless you're going to say that nappy adverts be illegal...
Is there a stack of explicit sexual images of cartoon characters depicted as under 18? I'm scared to go looking myself, since as of April 2010 in the UK I'd now be a sex offender facing three years in prison if I stumbled across one.
Oh, the irony - this explains everything that is wrong with Slashdot moderation these days (just because an argument may be wrong, doesn't mean it should be modded down).
(If it's off-topic, then you should mod the original post in this thread off-topic, not just my one. Why do the mod points get given all to those all have no clue how to use them?)
Slashdot Mirror
That's one definition, but there are others. These include a company being able to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that the price of the product is set by the firm, rather than by market forces. The theoretical definition of literally only one supplier is not very relevant in the real world.
Are you seriously telling me that all the courts were wrong to convict Microsoft? Why, if only Microsoft had called on you as their defence, you'd be up there, quoting from the dictionary! Why didn't they think of that?
That Moffat is a good writer, who can create interesting new characters. Which is a good thing, if he's now the main writer.
Standard Apple fan tactic #1: retreat to using anecdotes.
So because you had some people express interest in your PC, they, and everyone else, are now Apple lovers?
But they bought a PC because it's cheaper.
Firstly, Macs are PCs - I presume you're referring to Windows. But in other words, they would have bought an Apple PC, if it wasn't for a crucial feature that is why they don't like Apple PCs? I might as well claim that you love Windows, and the only reason you bought from Apple is because you Windows is hard to use, or whatever reasons it was you decided not to use it.
Oh, and by the way, can I help them with the fact that it's running like a dog and they can't get their computer to print over the network...
And such people have the same questions with Macs - it's just most of the time you won't hear about it, because fewer people have them. When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about their Amiga?
But it's more obvious that people are in love with Apple when it comes to iPods and iPhones. They're everywhere!
Apple fan tactic #2: conflate the Ipod (Apple's sole market leader) with other Apple products (usually the Iphone or now the Ipad).
Ipods are market leader. Iphones most certainly are not; Apple have a market share in the mobile market comparable or less than that of their share in the computer market.
You must be reading a different Slashdot to me. There's nothing but endless praise of Apple, from geeks who think that if they like Apple, everyone else must do too (actual market share shows a different story for computers and phones). And IME, this praise has increased significantly since 10 years ago.
So everyone agrees that everyone loves Microsoft, and that they're everyone's favourite company, right? I mean, they make so much money...
Ipods are loved here just as much as anywhere else - and that's the one area that Apple are market leader.
Furthermore the reason why some ignorant people call mp3 players "Ipods" is because of the vast amount of media coverage and company advertising, that only promotes Ipods, so most people aren't even aware of the alternatives. You honestly think it's because people have an opinion about Woz versus Jobs?
Apple is successful in good part because "everyone else" is heartily sick of having to rely on people like you. It's hardly surprising they prefer computing devices they can use without needing the help of a techie.
Yeah, Macs are the dominant computing platform. Oh wait.
(Not to mention that you're just spreading FUD anyway. Whether it's computers, mp3 players, phones or tablets, the alternatives do not require "techies".)
Yes, I hear that from a few people. They want to be special by not following the trend. But to not buy a product just because everyone else buys it is pretty much the same emotional behaviour buying something because everyone else has it.
Yeah, reminds me exactly of the "Think Different" nonsense.
No, the geeks at /. are in love with Steve's Apple - just look at the amount of coverage and praise for the Iphone and now the Ipad. Literally daily stories, with tonnes of praise, and any criticism modded down. The days when /. Apple fans preferred Woz's Apple, or openness in general, are long gone.
As for everyone else, most of them don't give a damn about either kind of Apple.
It is called child porn because it's pornography involving children, using drawings as medium.
No, there aren't any children involved. Fictional depictions of children, yes.
One might as well say of a murder mystery film that "it involved people being murdered, using film as a medium".
I REALLY hate this type of attempted rebuttal. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
That's an ad hominem.
I didn't accuse anyone of holding that view, hence the question mark, and offering the alternative question. But right, you are going for "Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?" - so care to elaborate? What makes that distinction?
"I don't think people should *NOT* be allowed to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater!"
"So, you support that all speech causing any incitement be banned - whether political or not?"
Well no, I wouldn't go "WTF" - that shows poor critical thinking skills. I'd simply answer the question with "No", and then respond with how the first causes harm, and the second doesn't, if that's what I believed. Here, we're already talking about cases that don't cause harm, so it's up to you to explain what the distinction is? Please, take the time to explain it clearly, as I evidently have poor critical thinking skills, and am unable to spot the difference.
A implies B, doesn't mean B implies A.
Heterosexuals have anal sex too, you know (both ways round). And plenty of homosexuals don't.
Thirdly, there's an exemption for intact copies of BBFC-classified films; without this it would theoretically be possible to be convicted for possessing Kill Bill volume 1!)
Indeed, this shows how mad the law is - they've criminalised possession of images that are available in mainstream media (South Park would be another example), and think that putting in the BBFC exception somehow makes it okay! (If these images are harmful, why doesn't this apply to a classified work? This also creates other problems - how is it going to be possible for a future work to be submitted for classification? The problem is that the film producers and anyone else in possession will be breaking the law, because they'd have possessed it before it received a classification.) The law even says that images or extracts from a classified work are not exempt!
These clauses a ripped straight from the equally-mad "extreme" porn law (Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act) that criminalises adult images. Whilst the law was being "debated" by MPs (and I use that term loosely), in response to criticism pointing out that the definitions could criminalise images in mainstream media, their response was not to revisit the definitions, but to simply whack on the BBFC exemption. This completely dumb and poorly worded law is now evidently being used as a template for yet more ludicrous laws.
And finally: "This discussion is about non-realistic images - your argument only applies to realistic fictional images." :)
Yes, that was my point indeed
Okay, but:
Therefore: Real child porn and virtual (photoshopped, drawn, rendered) child porn is illegal. If that also means obviously drawn child porn is illegal, that is fine with me.
You seem keen to use this as a justification for drawn "child" porn, which last time I looked was generally not realistic.
Everybody that needs images of children of nay kind to fap should have their heads examined.
Sure, but (a) this is drawings, not images of children, (b) the law criminalises people for possession, whether or not they "fap" to it, (c) discussing on whether people needing their heads examined isn't the same as saying they should spend years in prison.
But in case of children I'll gladly make the exception
In the case of imaginary depictions of children, you mean. And yes, that says it all - "Please won't somebody think of the children". At the very least, why isn't it a defence to show that the image isn't real, which still saves the police from actually having to do work (because evidently you've decided that police having to do some work is such a burden, and it's better to throw an innocent person in prison so the police can have an easier job)?
Have you tried it?
Yes, indeed - hence I argue that we shouldn't use terms like "child porn cartoons". You're right, even if one conceded that it was reasonable to use "child porn" to describe a cartoon (which I don't), the problem is still that the laws are far broader than that.
I fear this new law will be even broader than the dubious recent "extreme porn" law, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. The worrying thing is, I don't even think that hentai is some unintended consequence of the law - I've seen references to police forces explicitly mentioning hentai, calling it to be banned (e.g., in the consultation for Section 63, Gtr Manchester Police also called for laws against hentai. And the sad thing is, all we'll see reported in the press is "man convicted of possessing child pornography", with at best a reference to cartoons or drawings (one of the problems with trying to follow the consequences of Section 63 is that details in the press are very limited, and usually follow the Government-spin definitions of "man possessing extreme pornographic images").
Now there's a point - surely, so the Governments tell us, piracy results in fewer people buying the material, and results in great harm to the producers, resulting in them becoming penniless and forced to live on the streets. As a result of piracy, there is no incentive for producers to create new material.
So surely, according to their logic, pirating child porn is good, as it will result in less child porn being created, and will harm the people trying to create it...
I don't think you have to be hysterical to see why having a paedophilia image category might not be a good idea.
Whether or not it's a good idea, that doesn't make the category illegal. Does the category contain illegal images, or not?
If you can't tell the difference between drawings and actual photos, you must be blind.
This discussion is about non-realistic images - your argument only applies to realistic fictional images.
Under new laws, a simple well known game now results in the creation of snuff porn:
=======
|/ |
| 0
| /|\
| |
| / \
|
+-------
And how can you be sure that the person depicted here isn't under 18 too?
Indeed - the problem here is one of definitions, in particular, the way that the common definition is conflated with the legal one, something that lawmakers love to do.
Either we take the definition that child pornography is images of abuse - and therefore insist that cartoons are never child porn, by definition.
Or we use the legal definitions and acknowledge that cartoons can be considered "child porn", but argue that child porn isn't always abusive.
There's also the issue of places that criminalise images of adults over the age of consent - e.g. places like the UK where the AOC is 16, but an image of a 17 year old is "child" porn, or places where an adult image is illegal if the person merely looks under 18. Personally I'm tending towards the first approach that I list - it seems ludicrous to describe adults and fictional characters as "children", so an image of them can't be child porn.
The new UK law that criminalises fictional cartoons is a particularly laughable piece of spin - the law talks about images of a "child", and only later does it define "child" is such a broad way as to include anyone appearing under 18, or even of adults where the predominant impression conveyed is of someone under 18.
IIRC, Wikipedia also defines child pornography as being inherently abusive - I did raise the problem on the article of the more general definition being conflated with the legal definition.
Now there's an interesting point - as of 6 April 2010, fictional unrealistic images (cartoons, drawings etc) are treated as child porn ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 ). As a result, I don't dare even look at the images you describe, but yes, oral sex is covered by the law, and all that matters is the jury believe the character appears to be under 18, or the predominant impression conveyed is of someone under 18 - yes, even though the age of consent is 16 here!
So we also have the Internet Watch Foundation, which blocks any page that they think could be possible "child porn" (as they famously did with Wikipedia a while back). It's unclear to me if they have any plans to do this for the new law, but if they were, we could be seeing a lot more censorship.
(OTOH, now that the Digital Economy Act 2010 allows sites to be censored simply for being suspected of copyright infringement, we could see many more sites being blocked anyway.)
AFAIK, the status of these images in the US is unclear - IIRC, the Supreme Court overturned a previous law, but the problem is the Government keeps passing new subtlety different laws against it.
I think the OP was talking about fictional images (e.g., "lolicon")? Yes, for child pornography, there's the argument that even though the simply act of viewing or possession is a victimless crime, there are reasons to criminalise all of this. But none of this applies to people downloading fictional (especially unrealistic) images, even if they then go and download more of it.
but by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.
So you support that all images of distasteful things be banned - whether newsworthy (e.g., people being killed in war, to use a recent example), to fictional (violence and rape scenes in films) to unrealistic (cartoons that often show unrealistic violence)? Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?
On that note, I'm curious what these images are supposed to be. The image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon is surely not anything that would be considered "child" pornography, even in countries that have batshit laws against fictional images? Even if that was a real image with, you know, actual children, it wouldn't be child porn - unless you're going to say that nappy adverts be illegal...
Is there a stack of explicit sexual images of cartoon characters depicted as under 18? I'm scared to go looking myself, since as of April 2010 in the UK I'd now be a sex offender facing three years in prison if I stumbled across one.
Oh, the irony - this explains everything that is wrong with Slashdot moderation these days (just because an argument may be wrong, doesn't mean it should be modded down).
(If it's off-topic, then you should mod the original post in this thread off-topic, not just my one. Why do the mod points get given all to those all have no clue how to use them?)