As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."
Hmmm... yes, I could "choose" to have a sexual relationship with another man, but that wouldn't make me gay. I have absolutely no interest in testing those waters, but I could still actively choose to have that sexual relationship.
Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay. So how does that "choice" apply to people who AREN'T in a sexual relationship?
Also, if you choose to be gay, wouldn't you, out of necessity, also have to choose to be straight? I don't recall ever making that choice, and I've no interest in testing out the other side of things. There are a lot of things I don't like - onions come to mind - but I've had to actually try them out before I actually *knew* I didn't like them. I also had to have the initial drive to try them. I have no drive to try this, and I just *am* straight, unless I made that choice long, long ago and can't remember it.
It doesn't MATTER. The artist SOLD their idea to the RIAA, the RIAA now owns it, the RIAA is making the CDs, the RIAA is making money off the idea on the CD. It's NOT your decision because you can NOT tell the artists what to do with their music. They CHOSE to sell their idea off to a big, faceless entity. That was THEIR decision. You have neither the right, nor the moral authority, nor the legal ground to say that the artist's choice was wrong and then begin distributing the way you think they should have. It's not YOURS.
I don't feel bad for making rich distibuting companies richer.
I don't care how you feel about it. The fact is very, very simple: it's NOT YOURS. You DO NOT have ANY moral OR legal right to take that out of their hands. It's NOT YOURS.
You exaggerate the importance of the means of distribution
No, I don't. I don't care HOW the artists CHOOSE to distribute their music. If they CHOOSE to distribute their music through the RIAA, that's THEIR choice and you are trying to supercede that decision based on some obscure, poorly defined moral argument regarind the RIAA. I want you to answer this question: how is it more moral for you to supercede the artist's decision and take that power out of their hands than it is for them to CHOOSE to distribute through the RIAA? The RIAA may be a crummy business entity to buy from, but as a consumer, you must CHOOSE to purchase from them and the artists must CHOOSE to contract with them. YOU, on the other hand, are FORCING the artists onto a medium. How, exactly, is it moral for you to unwillingly force an artist to distribute through p2p but it's immoral for the RIAA to offer an artist a medium which the artist must ACTIVELY CHOOSE to join? You are arguing from a perch of absolute moral authority. However, 1) you do not define morality and 2) business doesn't work on moral grounds, it works on legal grounds. You certianly have no *right* to other people's music and you're not an absolute moral authority, and you definitely don't define the law individually. Therefore, you have no rights to exercise, moral authority, nor any legal grounds for this argument. Not only is it wrong for you to try and force the artists to do something just because that's what you want them to do, it's illegal. You are morally wrong, and you are legally wrong.
If the artists don't want to exchange ideas freely, then you cannot force them to do so. If artists want to release their content on the 'net, then they can do that. However, if they choose to (or, have already chosen to) go through the traditional medium, then that's their choice. It's their idea, they get to say how it's disseminated. They can, in fact, choose not to disseminate it at all. If you continue robbing them of their ability to be compensated, you will destroy music as we now know it. You could just as easily achieve the same end by NOT SUPPORTING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY WE HAVE NOW. You are NOT entitled to their music, so you shouldn't be downloading it, copying it, or anything else. You should simply choose not to purchase or listen to it. They don't get support, they either have to evolve or, if enough people get fed up enough with them, they'll die.
People like Blinder put their music online for everyone because they want to. Other artists want to make money, and they choose to go through the RIAA. Denying them the right to choose to sell their music through that group would be just as bad as telling Blinder he HAS to sell his music through them. Freedom goes both ways. They choose to sell their ideas through the RIAA, and if you go against those wishes, it's no better than the RIAA stomping all over independent people offering their music for the sake of offering their music. That's what the music theives don't understand. In the unlikely event that the individual complaining really does believe their misguided ideology and isn't just a cheap, theiving bastard, they don't understand that by ilegally sharing music, they are stomping the artist's decision to disseminate their music as they see fit right into the ground. You're not a great, moral arbiter. It's the artist's choice, and if you really care about freedom, you have to respect that, even if the artist's decision was a stupid one. Otherwise, you're just a different group forcing a different sort of immoral authority.
My reading comprehension is just fine. You must have forgotten the part where you claimed unspoken moral superiority for using the GPL (with the insinuation that you were superior because you didn't use a "proprietary" license). Maybe you should be more concerned about your short term memory than my reading comprehension, Max.
Since my point is that your little GPL license is every bit as wrong as proprietary licensing when it comes to "free as in freedom", maybe you should also consider your ability to read things in context?
I'm also curious as to when it was that I said you shouldn't be using the GPL or tried to say you should be using something else?
Oh, so, in your example, she actively invited her husband to attack her and rewarded him for years for abusing her?
Fuck no she shouldn't fight back after encouraging abuse for years.
Oh wait, you were suggesting that by marrying him she gave him the ability to abuse her? Wrong.
See, say you go into an $8 movie, and you don't like it. You've been taken advantage of. Say you keep doing it. Repeatedly. For years.
Guess what?
That's like the wife inviting abuse in some manner... then, rather than doing something about it, she CONTINUES to invite him to attack and beat her.
That would be stupid.
Just like all the people who steal music and movies and then try to justify it on the basis that they ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED THE INDUSTRIES TO ABUSE THEM BY REWARDING THE ABUSE FOR YEARS are stupid.
You lose, because you're not smart enough to realize that things that don't have a physical presence (well, not a physical presence in the sense most people are used to), can have value.
What you fail to understand is the basic economic principle that ideas have value. Since a song is just someone's idea put into practice, the song has value. If you increase the number of copies of that song in circulation, but you don't increase the amount of money that is being paid to the artist*, then you are lowering the overall value of the idea. Simple math, basic principle. You can argue that ideas should be free because they can't be easily contained physically, but you'd have to be stupid to do that, as you'd have no basis for charging people for everything from music to movies to software and beyond.
Since you are destroying that value while gaining something of theirs, you are, in fact, depriving the artists* of something, which is theft. You lose.
* Don't give me shit about the artists not getting the money. That's not anyone's fault but the person who inked their name on the contract.
Nice how you got one sympathetic dipshit to mod you Interesting.
Please... I'd like to know... how does profiling stop a real terrorist from slipping something onto an unsuspecting victim for retrieval by an accomplice later? Hmm?
Dumbasses... here's a clue: get some real security measures so that you can appropriately pick out people who need closer review based on - here's a fucking unique thought - criteria that may actually be threatening, right?
Oh... so, I can exact my own revenge on people who wrong me and as long as I justify it "morally", even if there were other, legitimate options, I'm perfectly in the right?
What if I, willingly mind you, gave them the avenue to abuse me in the first place? Being that I continued to provide them with the ability to abuse me, am I still justified in taking my revenge?
What an absolutely imbecilic statement to make. The GPL comes with enough strings to tie up an elephant, and almost all of the looney tunes that use it push it as some great "free as in freedom" deal. The GPL is not, in fact, free. It is just as restrictive as any proprietary license out there, just in the completely opposite manner.
If you want "free as in freedom", BSD is it. If you want to lock down people under psuedo-proprietary licensing schemes because you don't know what "free as in freedom" means, you use the GPL.
Moral superiority my ass... just a bunch of hippies who need a dictionary.
Oh, it's a real word, it's just a stupid one. It's become a sort of informal synonym of 'poetic' through common misuse (the same way 'virii' came into existance). It's still not the generally accepted word, 'poetic' is still the "normal" way of saying it.
But, of course, with Malda leading the downhill charge in communications skills here on Slashdot, I suppose this isn't the least bit surprising...
Was that sarcasm, or were you serious? Lots of people choose not to work in the field or at the task they know most about. I know a lot of whizzes at car motors who absolutely hate working in a garage. Just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean they're not qualified to sound off on it.
Not that it applies to Cringely... I have no idea whether he's qualified or not. Just saying "in general".
Actually, it was just your regular run-of-the-mill "I hate slashbots, so I'm going to point out the obvious to you like you're a small child because you displayed the cognitive ability of a small child" troll.
And, actually, truth-be-told, you said this as the follow up to the stroking-ego thing:
But I guess that's the best they can do...
Which is wrong. For the reasons I outlined. Now, please go back to your regular DMCA-RIAA-MPAA-Microsoft bashing while I slink back into the woodwork.
Hi, clueless Slashbot. This is a quick rundown of why your post was stupid, and why Cray supercomputers do, in fact, do some things better than a PC cluster regardless of price.
If you have a supercomputer, you have a very, very, very fast internal bus handling all necessary data transfer. Even with the advent of PCI Express, a cluster of PCs must run in a network model. Therefore, any data crunching that occurs must pass through a network layer, the bus, the physical medium, and back through those limiters once more on the next system. Therefore, if you are doing number cruncing that truly cannot afford the delays caused by the data transfer limitation of a PC cluster, a self-contained supercomputer is far and away the best option, even if it's more expensive.
Therefore, contrary to the idiotic drivel you just spouted, Cray does, in fact, have something to offer that no PC cluster currently can.
We now return you to your regular informed diatribe in the name of the self-gratifying masturbatory stupidity that is Slashdot.
Not the brightest color in the crayon box, are you? Your lack of cognitive ability is unfortunate, as I would have expected an individual with normal intelligence to be able to take the expanded illustration I provided and put it into the proper context. As you are incapable of doing that, I will spell it out explicitly. Let me know if you need me to dumb the illustration down any farther:
Cameras in public places violate privacy. If I'm not a criminal, or acting like one, the authorities can damn well keep their eyeballs elsewhere. And, yes, it is a violation. There are plenty of reasons to watch people whie you're in public. Law enforcement authorities must, however, be using these cameras on the assumption that the individuals being watched are criminals. If they're not using them for that reason, then they're not doing their jobs. Either way, the cameras are a violation. It's just a matter of whether they're violating privacy, or wasting tax dollars.
Presumption of guilt in the form of detailed background checks without provocation is a violation of my privacy. I can be treated like a criminal without cause anywhere from the bank to the airport.
Accused criminals deserve the right to a fair trial. Inventing bullshit terminology such as "enemy combatant" is an excuse to eliminate a person's civil liberties and nothing more.
Locking peaceful protestors up for having - get this - dissenting opinions is violation of free speech rights. Forcing people to be caged because they are protesting is jailing people for being dissenters.
Ashcroft did indeed attempt to silence the ACLU for challenging PATRIOT - and succeeded for quite some time.
Children ARE questioned and chided for drawing or saying unflattering things about the President. This IS a violation of free expression.
The fact that one right hasn't been completely devastated does not prove that others haven't, or that rights aren't under fire. You can CHOOSE to believe that you have the same level of freedom you did ten years ago, but you're wrong, and I'll just say you're blind, deaf, and stupid for saying it. And, no. I'm not interested in convincing you of my position. I don't give a shit. America sucks ass becuase it's full of idiots who are blind, deaf, and stupid, and I'm not wasting my time trying to convince them. Let the lemmings push each other off the cliff, I don't care.
Don't try to get on any flights. Remember, the president can unperson you. Cameras in Boston. Cameras in Baltimore. "Free speech prisons" at political wank fests (known to the less intelligent as "conventions") with barbed wire and gun toting thugs to keep the protestors in their place. Don't challenege PATRIOT, and if you do, you better damn well not tell anyone you're doing it. Don't draw unflattering pictures of the president.
Remember, you're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists. There is no in between, so there is no room for dissenting opinion.
Oh, I'm not going to play this dumb little "copyright infringement vs. theft" game. Both are illegal, both carry consequences, so pick which term you feel comfortable with as long you keep the consequence and activity straight in your own head.
You have DEVALUED a product with HAS VALUE. Therefore, you HAVE removed someone's property. Just because you didn't do it by explicitly removing a physical object doesn't mean you didn't remove something.
By stealing music, you are devaluing the rights on the product. Since you are devaluing something that someone owns and, therefore, causing them financial harm, you are, in fact, stealing from them whether you do it directly or indirectly. You are gaining something of value for nothing, and you are devaluing their rights on that something. You are stealing music.
I'm tired of debating it. If you don't like the way the music industry is run, don't participate. Don't think you, or some dopy college kid, or LeHara, or anyone else should escape the RIAAs grasp when they come a'knockin. You don't have to buy it, you're not being hurt by not buying it, therefore, you have no legitimate claim to what you're doing.
Ideas have value. Your ideas and what you do with them are your perogative. You cannot rewrite other people's decisions one what they do with their ideas just because you think you deserve to get whatever you want for nothing. The world doesn't work like that, it never has, and god help us all, hopefully it never will.
I'll bet it's even poetic, which is how most normal people would have put it since "poetical" is an extremely uncommon word and the more proper usage is, indeed, "poetic".
... oh wait, terribly sorry. Forgot where I was for a second. Stupid me.
Yes, that makes sense.... ignoring the inconvenient little fact that communism does not require that the ruling body be a dictatorship.... in fact, the theory behind communism wouldn't disallow the possibility of a society that elects its leaders to a congressional body.
The other inconvenient little fact is that the open source community is more like a purely benevolent capitalist society where the only people who work to produce things are those who choose to, then they willingly provide the fruits of their labor back to the collective.
Laugh it up funny-boy. While you're doing that, remind yourself that you're posting this on a site that's feeding you technology "news" that is owned by a company that makes its living pitching Linux and Open Source solutions.
Morons... you dipshits wouldn't know what "bias" meant if someone came up and tatooed the meaning on your face.
Slashdot Mirror
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."
Hmmm... yes, I could "choose" to have a sexual relationship with another man, but that wouldn't make me gay. I have absolutely no interest in testing those waters, but I could still actively choose to have that sexual relationship.
Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay. So how does that "choice" apply to people who AREN'T in a sexual relationship?
Also, if you choose to be gay, wouldn't you, out of necessity, also have to choose to be straight? I don't recall ever making that choice, and I've no interest in testing out the other side of things. There are a lot of things I don't like - onions come to mind - but I've had to actually try them out before I actually *knew* I didn't like them. I also had to have the initial drive to try them. I have no drive to try this, and I just *am* straight, unless I made that choice long, long ago and can't remember it.
THE ARTISTS DON'T MAKE MONEY FROM CD SALES!
It doesn't MATTER. The artist SOLD their idea to the RIAA, the RIAA now owns it, the RIAA is making the CDs, the RIAA is making money off the idea on the CD. It's NOT your decision because you can NOT tell the artists what to do with their music. They CHOSE to sell their idea off to a big, faceless entity. That was THEIR decision. You have neither the right, nor the moral authority, nor the legal ground to say that the artist's choice was wrong and then begin distributing the way you think they should have. It's not YOURS.
I don't feel bad for making rich distibuting companies richer.
I don't care how you feel about it. The fact is very, very simple: it's NOT YOURS. You DO NOT have ANY moral OR legal right to take that out of their hands. It's NOT YOURS.
You exaggerate the importance of the means of distribution
No, I don't. I don't care HOW the artists CHOOSE to distribute their music. If they CHOOSE to distribute their music through the RIAA, that's THEIR choice and you are trying to supercede that decision based on some obscure, poorly defined moral argument regarind the RIAA. I want you to answer this question: how is it more moral for you to supercede the artist's decision and take that power out of their hands than it is for them to CHOOSE to distribute through the RIAA? The RIAA may be a crummy business entity to buy from, but as a consumer, you must CHOOSE to purchase from them and the artists must CHOOSE to contract with them. YOU, on the other hand, are FORCING the artists onto a medium. How, exactly, is it moral for you to unwillingly force an artist to distribute through p2p but it's immoral for the RIAA to offer an artist a medium which the artist must ACTIVELY CHOOSE to join? You are arguing from a perch of absolute moral authority. However, 1) you do not define morality and 2) business doesn't work on moral grounds, it works on legal grounds. You certianly have no *right* to other people's music and you're not an absolute moral authority, and you definitely don't define the law individually. Therefore, you have no rights to exercise, moral authority, nor any legal grounds for this argument. Not only is it wrong for you to try and force the artists to do something just because that's what you want them to do, it's illegal. You are morally wrong, and you are legally wrong.
If the artists don't want to exchange ideas freely, then you cannot force them to do so. If artists want to release their content on the 'net, then they can do that. However, if they choose to (or, have already chosen to) go through the traditional medium, then that's their choice. It's their idea, they get to say how it's disseminated. They can, in fact, choose not to disseminate it at all. If you continue robbing them of their ability to be compensated, you will destroy music as we now know it. You could just as easily achieve the same end by NOT SUPPORTING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY WE HAVE NOW. You are NOT entitled to their music, so you shouldn't be downloading it, copying it, or anything else. You should simply choose not to purchase or listen to it. They don't get support, they either have to evolve or, if enough people get fed up enough with them, they'll die.
People like Blinder put their music online for everyone because they want to. Other artists want to make money, and they choose to go through the RIAA. Denying them the right to choose to sell their music through that group would be just as bad as telling Blinder he HAS to sell his music through them. Freedom goes both ways. They choose to sell their ideas through the RIAA, and if you go against those wishes, it's no better than the RIAA stomping all over independent people offering their music for the sake of offering their music. That's what the music theives don't understand. In the unlikely event that the individual complaining really does believe their misguided ideology and isn't just a cheap, theiving bastard, they don't understand that by ilegally sharing music, they are stomping the artist's decision to disseminate their music as they see fit right into the ground. You're not a great, moral arbiter. It's the artist's choice, and if you really care about freedom, you have to respect that, even if the artist's decision was a stupid one. Otherwise, you're just a different group forcing a different sort of immoral authority.
My reading comprehension is just fine. You must have forgotten the part where you claimed unspoken moral superiority for using the GPL (with the insinuation that you were superior because you didn't use a "proprietary" license). Maybe you should be more concerned about your short term memory than my reading comprehension, Max.
Since my point is that your little GPL license is every bit as wrong as proprietary licensing when it comes to "free as in freedom", maybe you should also consider your ability to read things in context?
I'm also curious as to when it was that I said you shouldn't be using the GPL or tried to say you should be using something else?
Oh, so, in your example, she actively invited her husband to attack her and rewarded him for years for abusing her?
Fuck no she shouldn't fight back after encouraging abuse for years.
Oh wait, you were suggesting that by marrying him she gave him the ability to abuse her? Wrong.
See, say you go into an $8 movie, and you don't like it. You've been taken advantage of. Say you keep doing it. Repeatedly. For years.
Guess what?
That's like the wife inviting abuse in some manner... then, rather than doing something about it, she CONTINUES to invite him to attack and beat her.
That would be stupid.
Just like all the people who steal music and movies and then try to justify it on the basis that they ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED THE INDUSTRIES TO ABUSE THEM BY REWARDING THE ABUSE FOR YEARS are stupid.
You lose!
You lose, because you're not smart enough to realize that things that don't have a physical presence (well, not a physical presence in the sense most people are used to), can have value.
What you fail to understand is the basic economic principle that ideas have value. Since a song is just someone's idea put into practice, the song has value. If you increase the number of copies of that song in circulation, but you don't increase the amount of money that is being paid to the artist*, then you are lowering the overall value of the idea. Simple math, basic principle. You can argue that ideas should be free because they can't be easily contained physically, but you'd have to be stupid to do that, as you'd have no basis for charging people for everything from music to movies to software and beyond.
Since you are destroying that value while gaining something of theirs, you are, in fact, depriving the artists* of something, which is theft. You lose.
* Don't give me shit about the artists not getting the money. That's not anyone's fault but the person who inked their name on the contract.
Nice how you got one sympathetic dipshit to mod you Interesting.
Please... I'd like to know... how does profiling stop a real terrorist from slipping something onto an unsuspecting victim for retrieval by an accomplice later? Hmm?
Dumbasses... here's a clue: get some real security measures so that you can appropriately pick out people who need closer review based on - here's a fucking unique thought - criteria that may actually be threatening, right?
Because random isn't good enough, and profiling is how stupid bigots answer problems. After all... white people could never be the enemy.
If you don't know what you're buying... don't buy it.
Tough concept for stupid slashbots and children to digest, I know.
Oh... so, I can exact my own revenge on people who wrong me and as long as I justify it "morally", even if there were other, legitimate options, I'm perfectly in the right?
What if I, willingly mind you, gave them the avenue to abuse me in the first place? Being that I continued to provide them with the ability to abuse me, am I still justified in taking my revenge?
Stealing cars off the lot is also okay as long as you either take it back or buy it, right?
Oh boy... here we go... "copyright infringement isn't steeaaaling".
What an absolutely imbecilic statement to make. The GPL comes with enough strings to tie up an elephant, and almost all of the looney tunes that use it push it as some great "free as in freedom" deal. The GPL is not, in fact, free. It is just as restrictive as any proprietary license out there, just in the completely opposite manner.
If you want "free as in freedom", BSD is it. If you want to lock down people under psuedo-proprietary licensing schemes because you don't know what "free as in freedom" means, you use the GPL.
Moral superiority my ass... just a bunch of hippies who need a dictionary.
Oh, it's a real word, it's just a stupid one. It's become a sort of informal synonym of 'poetic' through common misuse (the same way 'virii' came into existance). It's still not the generally accepted word, 'poetic' is still the "normal" way of saying it.
But, of course, with Malda leading the downhill charge in communications skills here on Slashdot, I suppose this isn't the least bit surprising...
and for failing to pay rebate claims.
THANK GOD
Best Buy is absolutely CROOKED.
Was that sarcasm, or were you serious? Lots of people choose not to work in the field or at the task they know most about. I know a lot of whizzes at car motors who absolutely hate working in a garage. Just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean they're not qualified to sound off on it.
Not that it applies to Cringely... I have no idea whether he's qualified or not. Just saying "in general".
Actually, it was just your regular run-of-the-mill "I hate slashbots, so I'm going to point out the obvious to you like you're a small child because you displayed the cognitive ability of a small child" troll.
And, actually, truth-be-told, you said this as the follow up to the stroking-ego thing:
But I guess that's the best they can do...
Which is wrong. For the reasons I outlined. Now, please go back to your regular DMCA-RIAA-MPAA-Microsoft bashing while I slink back into the woodwork.
k thx!
How ironic.
I don't think like you.. so... I... don't think for myself.
Hi, clueless Slashbot. This is a quick rundown of why your post was stupid, and why Cray supercomputers do, in fact, do some things better than a PC cluster regardless of price.
If you have a supercomputer, you have a very, very, very fast internal bus handling all necessary data transfer. Even with the advent of PCI Express, a cluster of PCs must run in a network model. Therefore, any data crunching that occurs must pass through a network layer, the bus, the physical medium, and back through those limiters once more on the next system. Therefore, if you are doing number cruncing that truly cannot afford the delays caused by the data transfer limitation of a PC cluster, a self-contained supercomputer is far and away the best option, even if it's more expensive.
Therefore, contrary to the idiotic drivel you just spouted, Cray does, in fact, have something to offer that no PC cluster currently can.
We now return you to your regular informed diatribe in the name of the self-gratifying masturbatory stupidity that is Slashdot.
Not the brightest color in the crayon box, are you? Your lack of cognitive ability is unfortunate, as I would have expected an individual with normal intelligence to be able to take the expanded illustration I provided and put it into the proper context. As you are incapable of doing that, I will spell it out explicitly. Let me know if you need me to dumb the illustration down any farther:
Cameras in public places violate privacy. If I'm not a criminal, or acting like one, the authorities can damn well keep their eyeballs elsewhere. And, yes, it is a violation. There are plenty of reasons to watch people whie you're in public. Law enforcement authorities must, however, be using these cameras on the assumption that the individuals being watched are criminals. If they're not using them for that reason, then they're not doing their jobs. Either way, the cameras are a violation. It's just a matter of whether they're violating privacy, or wasting tax dollars.
Presumption of guilt in the form of detailed background checks without provocation is a violation of my privacy. I can be treated like a criminal without cause anywhere from the bank to the airport.
Accused criminals deserve the right to a fair trial. Inventing bullshit terminology such as "enemy combatant" is an excuse to eliminate a person's civil liberties and nothing more.
Locking peaceful protestors up for having - get this - dissenting opinions is violation of free speech rights. Forcing people to be caged because they are protesting is jailing people for being dissenters.
Ashcroft did indeed attempt to silence the ACLU for challenging PATRIOT - and succeeded for quite some time.
Children ARE questioned and chided for drawing or saying unflattering things about the President. This IS a violation of free expression.
The fact that one right hasn't been completely devastated does not prove that others haven't, or that rights aren't under fire. You can CHOOSE to believe that you have the same level of freedom you did ten years ago, but you're wrong, and I'll just say you're blind, deaf, and stupid for saying it. And, no. I'm not interested in convincing you of my position. I don't give a shit. America sucks ass becuase it's full of idiots who are blind, deaf, and stupid, and I'm not wasting my time trying to convince them. Let the lemmings push each other off the cliff, I don't care.
Don't try to get on any flights. Remember, the president can unperson you. Cameras in Boston. Cameras in Baltimore. "Free speech prisons" at political wank fests (known to the less intelligent as "conventions") with barbed wire and gun toting thugs to keep the protestors in their place. Don't challenege PATRIOT, and if you do, you better damn well not tell anyone you're doing it. Don't draw unflattering pictures of the president.
Remember, you're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists. There is no in between, so there is no room for dissenting opinion.
Oh, I'm not going to play this dumb little "copyright infringement vs. theft" game. Both are illegal, both carry consequences, so pick which term you feel comfortable with as long you keep the consequence and activity straight in your own head.
You have DEVALUED a product with HAS VALUE. Therefore, you HAVE removed someone's property. Just because you didn't do it by explicitly removing a physical object doesn't mean you didn't remove something.
By stealing music, you are devaluing the rights on the product. Since you are devaluing something that someone owns and, therefore, causing them financial harm, you are, in fact, stealing from them whether you do it directly or indirectly. You are gaining something of value for nothing, and you are devaluing their rights on that something. You are stealing music.
I'm tired of debating it. If you don't like the way the music industry is run, don't participate. Don't think you, or some dopy college kid, or LeHara, or anyone else should escape the RIAAs grasp when they come a'knockin. You don't have to buy it, you're not being hurt by not buying it, therefore, you have no legitimate claim to what you're doing.
Ideas have value. Your ideas and what you do with them are your perogative. You cannot rewrite other people's decisions one what they do with their ideas just because you think you deserve to get whatever you want for nothing. The world doesn't work like that, it never has, and god help us all, hopefully it never will.
I'll bet it's even poetic, which is how most normal people would have put it since "poetical" is an extremely uncommon word and the more proper usage is, indeed, "poetic".
... oh wait, terribly sorry. Forgot where I was for a second. Stupid me.
Exactly. I am not stealing "art" from an artist. I am merely enjoying the art. That's not immoral.
and
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. I am not depriving anyone of music.
Are you suggesting that you cannot own anything you cannot physically control?
Wow. You just proved you know nothing about communism.
Go look it up and try again.
Yes, that makes sense.... ignoring the inconvenient little fact that communism does not require that the ruling body be a dictatorship.... in fact, the theory behind communism wouldn't disallow the possibility of a society that elects its leaders to a congressional body.
The other inconvenient little fact is that the open source community is more like a purely benevolent capitalist society where the only people who work to produce things are those who choose to, then they willingly provide the fruits of their labor back to the collective.
Laugh it up funny-boy. While you're doing that, remind yourself that you're posting this on a site that's feeding you technology "news" that is owned by a company that makes its living pitching Linux and Open Source solutions.
Morons... you dipshits wouldn't know what "bias" meant if someone came up and tatooed the meaning on your face.