Did Microsoft have a change of heart? Probably not, this is probably either a part of the anti-trust case against them in which they promised to make their software more interoperable, or it is to stave off anti-trust case part 2.
As always Wikipedia comes to the rescue (and since it's released under the
GNU Free Documentation License I can legally present the whole article to
you nice people of Slashdot):).
The click of death is a
failure mode typical of
Iomega
Zip drives. The term is also used more broadly to refer to failures of
several other kinds of
disk storage systems. In all cases, the click of death is characterized by a
noticeable clicking or buzzing sound and is usually caused by a
head crash.
The term became common in the late
1990s, describing a problem particular to Iomega's Zip drives. Zip disks,
although popular, were not particularly sturdy (being exposed to the dust and
grime of an unfiltered environment), and the drives were prone to developing
misaligned heads. These damaged and dirty heads would try to read a disk, only
get a marginal signal, then the controller would quickly snap the head arm back
into the drive and out again, producing the click and (in many cases) tearing
up the edge of the disk and even the heads themselves. Compounding the problem,
the damaged disks would often go on to damage the heads of any other drive they
were used in.
Iomega received thousands of complaints about the click of death, but denied
all responsibility: often, to the fury of Zip drive owners, claiming that the
problems were caused by the use of (functionally identical) third-party media. A
class action suit was filed against them in September
1998.
The case was settled in March
2001
and Zip drive owners were given a rebate, but Iomega's reputation has yet to
fully recover.
On non-Zip systems (usually a
hard disk), the click of death refers to a similar phenomenon; when
a hard disk has a hard error or
servo failure, the head actuator will buzz and click as the drive tries to
recover from the error. Since the media is not removable on these drives, the
defect is almost always due to physical abuse or a manufacturing error.
IBM's
storage division had their own click of death problems in
2001
with the mass failure of their popular Deskstar 75GXP hard disks.
Stallman's
response, an enlightening read, highlights a good deal of what I consider
the difference between Open Source folks like Jorrit and Free folks like
Stallman.
That was quite a good link, explains the difference between Free and Open Source
software extremely well.
"With all of the tracking and saving of messages they will be doing, how smart is it to even attempt something like this?"
For wares? Not sure how smart warez people are to begin with, since trading warez in any medium is illegal in most places anyhow;).
That being said, the use of encryption, public computers, anonymous remailers, and the fact that someone would have to report you doing it since not even an army of people can keep track of all the messages.
Gmail will have warez the same way warez, and various pornography, was traded in the open on IRC, on yahoo groups, on the web, on P2P etc. etc. etc.
"There is a 10MB/attachment max, I believe. If you're talking warez, you'd have to be giving people access to the password, at which point someone will delete the files or just change the password."
If you are talking warez, then I simply forward the attachment(s) to *your*, and anyone elses', gmail accounts so you can download them at your leisure.
This might also be an excellent way to distribute normal software as well. Goto a webpage to download some software, put in your gmail account and click a button and the webpage tells a gmail account to foward software to your gmail address. Aside from the 1st time upload, all the bandwith is being paid for by Google (and the downloaders).
maynard said: "How many times must we mail letters to our representatives again and again on the same issue? How many times will companies and those affiliated with the WTO continue to introduce the same legislation, maybe hidden as a rider here, maybe out in the open there, each time with the hope that citizens will tire of voicing their opposition over the same issue again and again. Un-fuck'n-believable. "
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Until that time, you have to play by the rules that Apple, the artists, and the labels agree upon if you want to use iTunes. "
No, we most certainly do not have to play by Apple's "rules" if we do not want to. The people ultimately make the laws and if there was the will we could make it so the DMCA was revoked.
While we are at it let us revoke the length of copyright down to 14 years as it was origionally, these information monopolists are pushing the envelope with their demands for DMCA like laws to gut the free flow of information.
While you are cleaning up with patent reform, please don't forget copyright reform too: reduce the length and increase fair use please:).
The hardest part is finding egregious examples that will make people rally behind the reform effort. Right now patent and copyright law / reforms seem to just bore the general public, need to make it clear how they are being harmed.
I suggest that if your response is going to be essay length then use essay
format. As
it is now it flows haphazardly, and is even worse without a thesis statement as
a guide post.
Matt - Duke '05 said: However, it would be outlandish to attempt to deny the fact that the
overwhelming majority of content traded via P2P networks is pirated material.
By using the term pirate, or theft (instead of copyright infringement), you do
yourself a disservice if your intention is to at least have the appearance of
neutrality.
Matt - Duke '05 said: However, once Joe American and his friends were pirating massive quantites
of
content online they couldn't just ignore the issue any longer.
Massive quantities of content like radio and books + media from the library?
Perhaps you mean people reading the classics for free because they were in
public domain? No? Ah yes, I know the problem, the 'pirating' issue
again. Solution: use law to put the content into the public domain,
and expand fair use.
Matt - Duke '05 said: Sure, the penalites being imposed don't fit the crime...You want to stop
being
treated like criminals? Well then stop acting like them.
There doesn't have to be any 'crime', that is the point. The people can will,
though voting, that copyright be a day in length. These corporations forget that
their billions in copyright profit comes by permission of the people; these very
people that are starting to become annoyed at being treated as criminals. Soon
the people
will simply change the definition.
Matt - Duke '05 said: As a result, we only get stiffer penalties and more draconian laws...
No. People are using p2p in defiance of the law because people have no respect
for the law as it stands. Just as many people continued to drink alcohol during
prohibition: stupid laws are broken, and eventually removed, when many, and
eventually the majority, of people find them absurd.
Matt - Duke '05 said: You shouldn't be congratulating and encouraging people to pirate content via
P2P
networks as if it were some sort of moral imperative with equal gravity to most
situations that truly deserve non violent protest.
Promoting *copyright infrindgement* as a means of civil disobedience and protest
is perfectly ok. The real test though is if these people are willing to goto
jail, or be bankrupted ($$$$$ in fines, or being sued). It really is too bad
that people will have to goto jail or be bankrupted, I suggest we try to reduce
copyright length so people will not have to have their lives destroyed over
this.
Matt - Duke '05 said: Don't buy their products... you only prove to these companies that there is
indeed a demand and a market for their products.
Many copyright infringers do not want their artists to go bankrupt. Some simply
are aware that the RIAA was guilty of price gouging, and think that paying more
for a CD then a *movie DVD* is corrupt and unfair. Others only want to try the
product, and still others are not willing or able to buy it so they download it.
(Interesting side point, many companies think they have a lost sale every time
someone downloads their work. Of course this is false, if someone downloads
something that wouldn't have bought to begin with there is no loss for the
company. This is one reason why the estimates of losses from P2P is so
outlandishly high).
Conclusion: people have no respect for these draconian (and becoming more
draconian by the day) copyright laws and it is now up to the people to make
their pleasure known. Vote for candidates that want fair use rights enlarged,
and copyright length reduced.
I agree with you (Mod him up plz:) ). 95 year copyright, the RIAA being found *guilty* of price gouging, CDs that are more expensive then *DVD movies*, actively criminalizing people: the current laws are crazy.
Also just because people are downloading these games and mp3s doesn't mean they dont eventually buy it. I downloaded a game I liked, Alpha Centauri, then *bought* the expansion pack (to get tech support, the manual, and the satisfaction of possession. Many people enjoy *buying* and *owning* something).
It is time to reject these attempts at information prohibition. Trying to criminalize a majority of the people's behaviour is moronic, and will finally be seen to be moronic when we vote to stop it.
I am very disapointed at Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy's half hearted attempts to criminalize the free flow of information, surely they could have gone further?
What the media corporations should have demanded from their Senate bought minions is a bill that outlawed all transfers of copyrighted material without permission, i.e. no more nasty pirates reading books for free at libraries, or borrowing music, videos or software there either.
Oh well, I guess that's on their agenda for next week;).
Bonch's post I would say listening to it first is a pretty good way
to decide whether something is valuable to you.
Slashdotters love to say this...as though the majority of the people on Kazaa
are sampling all those albums in order to run to the store and purchase them
to re-get them.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is
that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for
stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if you pretend
otherwise.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the RIAA suing people who are illegally
distributing their product. I don't get the opposition to that either.
Your a naughty slashdot user, you didn't read this article from 4 days ago!
My opinion: It's time to make 'illegal' file trading legal by reducing
copyright to nonobscene levels. A monopoly on information and the right to
gouge consumers for 95 years (if your a corporation, even longer if your an
individual;) ) is bullshit. Time for these companies to realize it is the
people can change the laws, and will do so soon enough.
People are hung up too much on 'illegal' which seems a different thing then 'immoral'.
A solution: the people make the laws, and I suggest we reduce copyright length to something half reasonable so we can trade files and then 'illegally distributing software and music' becomes 'distributing software and music' and then the people are happy.
Very interesting, you should also consider trying to do a campaign to reduce
copyright lengths, maybe to 20 years like patents.
I was also hoping to join an activist group / campaign (politically if they have
one) at the local, national or international level to try and reduce copyright
lengths. (The creative commons and
Larry Lessig's blog are good sites but
are not a campaign for copyright reduction laws per say).
If they can pass laws that keep on extending copyright law, I don't see why
there can't be an opposition political movement that
"People aren't really being killed in action films and the news doesn't show you the actual act of the killing as a rule (not where I'm from anyway). So what's your point?"
Ah but people say "child porno encourages child molestation" which follows that "action movies encourages violence / murder", yet only one of these illegal activities is censored.
If you are in favor of censoring child porno since it may encourage illegal acts then you should be in favor of censoring movies as they too may encourage illegal acts (i.e. violence/m urder).
If you can justify how you can censor one and not the other then please give your arguement here.
"And what do you think will happen to a child if they came across a picture of a woman fucking a donkey? Or three men fisting each other? Or an avi of a violent gang rape?"
If my wife sees any of the above, she would probably break down crying, throw up, and/or be extremely depressed for a week."
I suggest that there is a higher threshold then hysteria when dealing with sending people to jail or censorship. In any event if some person's hysterical reaction is justification for banning something, then I am sure people were (are?) hysterical about: interracial marriage, gay marriage, not eating fish on Friday,...and the list goes on and on.
If actually do think hysteria on the part of a few is justification for censorship and or jail then what is you arguement for that, and where is the line drawn.
Txiasaeia said: "And what do you think will happen to a child if they came across a picture of a woman fucking a donkey? Or three men fisting each other? Or an avi of a violent gang rape?"
My guess? Nothing again. I've yet to hear what you think would happen, so enlighten me. As well it seems best if children are aware about the realities of the world, anything else is wishful thinking and or deception.
Txiasaeia said: "Nudity I don't have a problem with, but children should NOT run wild on the Internet, and jokers like this should *not* be redirecting kids (who else is going to the Bob the Builder web site?) to porn, "innocent" or otherwise. Hell, even if I'm standing over my kid's shoulder watching him surf, even seeing a second of such hardcore porn is going to be *extremely* disturbing. Need I remind you of goatse?"
Sure remind me of goatse, and while you are there please describe the harm you think happens when someone, anyone (including children), witnesses goatse, (or anything else for that matter).
"There's no way that you can justify child porno in our society."
What I asked was:
"The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news."
I take your (non)response as a "I am a hypocrite since some illegal things are ok to video tape and promote (like violence) and others are not ok", unless of course you would actually like to reply this time with your arguement as how some illegal things can be censored and others not.
"Child porn is illegal because it does hurt the children (Whether you're causing it to happen, or distributing it, etc.)"
The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news.
"You're joking right? He intentionally misslead childen to a sex site. I don't mean to come off as all "dear god, not the children!", but this guy is scum and deserves it."
What exactly do you think will happen to these children if they view nude bodies?
My guess? Nothing. Why is nudity defacto illegal then? Now *thats* a good question.
"Griffith's patent-pending device essentially eliminates these problems."
Yes, and this is exactly what patents are for, new useful non-obvious inventions. His invention will help a lot of people and I hope he gets money from it so he will be encouraged to make more useful products.
"Tolerating the existence of it is giving a tacit nod to its production.
Mere possession of same in the US is a crime, and should be. Then again, I have two daughters and I wasn't so militant about the issue before then. Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task. Yes, that means you, with the mod points. "
I guess then you endorse that movies and news that shows illegal activites like murder, killing etc. should also be illegal and censored, otherwise it encourages and gives as you say 'tacit nod' to these also illegal activities.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Microsoft have a change of heart? Probably not, this is probably either a part of the anti-trust case against them in which they promised to make their software more interoperable, or it is to stave off anti-trust case part 2.
As always Wikipedia comes to the rescue (and since it's released under the GNU Free Documentation License I can legally present the whole article to you nice people of Slashdot) :).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_of_death
Click of death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[edit]
The click of death is a failure mode typical of Iomega Zip drives. The term is also used more broadly to refer to failures of several other kinds of disk storage systems. In all cases, the click of death is characterized by a noticeable clicking or buzzing sound and is usually caused by a head crash.
The term became common in the late 1990s, describing a problem particular to Iomega's Zip drives. Zip disks, although popular, were not particularly sturdy (being exposed to the dust and grime of an unfiltered environment), and the drives were prone to developing misaligned heads. These damaged and dirty heads would try to read a disk, only get a marginal signal, then the controller would quickly snap the head arm back into the drive and out again, producing the click and (in many cases) tearing up the edge of the disk and even the heads themselves. Compounding the problem, the damaged disks would often go on to damage the heads of any other drive they were used in.
Iomega received thousands of complaints about the click of death, but denied all responsibility: often, to the fury of Zip drive owners, claiming that the problems were caused by the use of (functionally identical) third-party media. A class action suit was filed against them in September 1998. The case was settled in March 2001 and Zip drive owners were given a rebate, but Iomega's reputation has yet to fully recover.
On non-Zip systems (usually a hard disk), the click of death refers to a similar phenomenon; when a hard disk has a hard error or servo failure, the head actuator will buzz and click as the drive tries to recover from the error. Since the media is not removable on these drives, the defect is almost always due to physical abuse or a manufacturing error. IBM's storage division had their own click of death problems in 2001 with the mass failure of their popular Deskstar 75GXP hard disks.
External links
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for
Stallman's response, an enlightening read, highlights a good deal of what I consider the difference between Open Source folks like Jorrit and Free folks like Stallman.
That was quite a good link, explains the difference between Free and Open Source software extremely well.
"With all of the tracking and saving of messages they will be doing, how smart is it to even attempt something like this?"
;).
For wares? Not sure how smart warez people are to begin with, since trading warez in any medium is illegal in most places anyhow
That being said, the use of encryption, public computers, anonymous remailers, and the fact that someone would have to report you doing it since not even an army of people can keep track of all the messages.
Gmail will have warez the same way warez, and various pornography, was traded in the open on IRC, on yahoo groups, on the web, on P2P etc. etc. etc.
"There is a 10MB/attachment max, I believe. If you're talking warez, you'd have to be giving people access to the password, at which point someone will delete the files or just change the password."
If you are talking warez, then I simply forward the attachment(s) to *your*, and anyone elses', gmail accounts so you can download them at your leisure.
This might also be an excellent way to distribute normal software as well. Goto a webpage to download some software, put in your gmail account and click a button and the webpage tells a gmail account to foward software to your gmail address. Aside from the 1st time upload, all the bandwith is being paid for by Google (and the downloaders).
maynard said:
"How many times must we mail letters to our representatives again and again on the same issue? How many times will companies and those affiliated with the WTO continue to introduce the same legislation, maybe hidden as a rider here, maybe out in the open there, each time with the hope that citizens will tire of voicing their opposition over the same issue again and again. Un-fuck'n-believable. "
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Until that time, you have to play by the rules that Apple, the artists, and the labels agree upon if you want to use iTunes. "
No, we most certainly do not have to play by Apple's "rules" if we do not want to. The people ultimately make the laws and if there was the will we could make it so the DMCA was revoked.
While we are at it let us revoke the length of copyright down to 14 years as it was origionally, these information monopolists are pushing the envelope with their demands for DMCA like laws to gut the free flow of information.
If you are afraid of censorship in whatever form (including the DMCA) then you really should mirror yourself on Freenet.
Freenet is currently the #1 publishing medium for people which censorship is a concern.
While you are cleaning up with patent reform, please don't forget copyright reform too: reduce the length and increase fair use please :).
The hardest part is finding egregious examples that will make people rally behind the reform effort. Right now patent and copyright law / reforms seem to just bore the general public, need to make it clear how they are being harmed.
I suggest that if your response is going to be essay length then use essay format. As
it is now it flows haphazardly, and is even worse without a thesis statement as a guide post.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
However, it would be outlandish to attempt to deny the fact that the
overwhelming majority of content traded via P2P networks is pirated material.
By using the term pirate, or theft (instead of copyright infringement), you do
yourself a disservice if your intention is to at least have the appearance of
neutrality.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
However, once Joe American and his friends were pirating massive quantites of
content online they couldn't just ignore the issue any longer.
Massive quantities of content like radio and books + media from the library? Perhaps you mean people reading the classics for free because they were in public domain? No? Ah yes, I know the problem, the 'pirating' issue again. Solution: use law to put the content into the public domain, and expand fair use.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
Sure, the penalites being imposed don't fit the crime...You want to stop being
treated like criminals? Well then stop acting like them.
There doesn't have to be any 'crime', that is the point. The people can will,
though voting, that copyright be a day in length. These corporations forget that
their billions in copyright profit comes by permission of the people; these very
people that are starting to become annoyed at being treated as criminals. Soon the people
will simply change the definition.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
As a result, we only get stiffer penalties and more draconian laws...
No. People are using p2p in defiance of the law because people have no respect
for the law as it stands. Just as many people continued to drink alcohol during
prohibition: stupid laws are broken, and eventually removed, when many, and
eventually the majority, of people find them absurd.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
You shouldn't be congratulating and encouraging people to pirate content via P2P
networks as if it were some sort of moral imperative with equal gravity to most
situations that truly deserve non violent protest.
Promoting *copyright infrindgement* as a means of civil disobedience and protest
is perfectly ok. The real test though is if these people are willing to goto
jail, or be bankrupted ($$$$$ in fines, or being sued). It really is too bad
that people will have to goto jail or be bankrupted, I suggest we try to reduce
copyright length so people will not have to have their lives destroyed over this.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
Don't buy their products... you only prove to these companies that there is indeed a demand and a market for their products.
Many copyright infringers do not want their artists to go bankrupt. Some simply are aware that the RIAA was guilty of price gouging, and think that paying more for a CD then a *movie DVD* is corrupt and unfair. Others only want to try the product, and still others are not willing or able to buy it so they download it.
(Interesting side point, many companies think they have a lost sale every time someone downloads their work. Of course this is false, if someone downloads something that wouldn't have bought to begin with there is no loss for the company. This is one reason why the estimates of losses from P2P is so outlandishly high).
Conclusion: people have no respect for these draconian (and becoming more draconian by the day) copyright laws and it is now up to the people to make their pleasure known. Vote for candidates that want fair use rights enlarged, and copyright length reduced.
I agree with you (Mod him up plz :) ). 95 year copyright, the RIAA being found *guilty* of price gouging, CDs that are more expensive then *DVD movies*, actively criminalizing people: the current laws are crazy.
Also just because people are downloading these games and mp3s doesn't mean they dont eventually buy it. I downloaded a game I liked, Alpha Centauri, then *bought* the expansion pack (to get tech support, the manual, and the satisfaction of possession. Many people enjoy *buying* and *owning* something).
It is time to reject these attempts at information prohibition. Trying to criminalize a majority of the people's behaviour is moronic, and will finally be seen to be moronic when we vote to stop it.
I am very disapointed at Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy's half hearted attempts to criminalize the free flow of information, surely they could have gone further?
;).
What the media corporations should have demanded from their Senate bought minions is a bill that outlawed all transfers of copyrighted material without permission, i.e. no more nasty pirates reading books for free at libraries, or borrowing music, videos or software there either.
Oh well, I guess that's on their agenda for next week
Bonch's post
I would say listening to it first is a pretty good way to decide whether something is valuable to you.
Slashdotters love to say this...as though the majority of the people on Kazaa are sampling all those albums in order to run to the store and purchase them to re-get them.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if you pretend otherwise.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the RIAA suing people who are illegally distributing their product. I don't get the opposition to that either.
Your a naughty slashdot user, you didn't read this article from 4 days ago!
m l?tid=126&tid=141&tid=188&tid=95
File Sharing Increases CD Sales
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/19/0112230.sht
My opinion: It's time to make 'illegal' file trading legal by reducing copyright to nonobscene levels. A monopoly on information and the right to gouge consumers for 95 years (if your a corporation, even longer if your an individual ;) ) is bullshit. Time for these companies to realize it is the
people can change the laws, and will do so soon enough.
People are hung up too much on 'illegal' which seems a different thing then 'immoral'.
A solution: the people make the laws, and I suggest we reduce copyright length to something half reasonable so we can trade files and then 'illegally distributing software and music' becomes 'distributing software and music' and then the people are happy.
Downloading?!
I am fairly certain it is only illegal (i.e. copyright infrindgement) to *UPLOAD* not download.
This Nintendo lawyer is stupider then David Boies.
Very interesting, you should also consider trying to do a campaign to reduce copyright lengths, maybe to 20 years like patents.
I was also hoping to join an activist group / campaign (politically if they have one) at the local, national or international level to try and reduce copyright lengths. (The creative commons and Larry Lessig's blog are good sites but are not a campaign for copyright reduction laws per say).
If they can pass laws that keep on extending copyright law, I don't see why there can't be an opposition political movement that
"People aren't really being killed in action films and the news doesn't show you the actual act of the killing as a rule (not where I'm from anyway). So what's your point?"
/m urder).
Ah but people say "child porno encourages child molestation" which follows that "action movies encourages violence / murder", yet only one of these illegal activities is censored.
If you are in favor of censoring child porno since it may encourage illegal acts then you should be in favor of censoring movies as they too may encourage illegal acts (i.e. violence
If you can justify how you can censor one and not the other then please give your arguement here.
"And what do you think will happen to a child if they came across a picture of a woman fucking a donkey? Or three men fisting each other? Or an avi of a violent gang rape?"
...and the list goes on and on.
If my wife sees any of the above, she would probably break down crying, throw up, and/or be extremely depressed for a week."
I suggest that there is a higher threshold then hysteria when dealing with sending people to jail or censorship. In any event if some person's hysterical reaction is justification for banning something, then I am sure people were (are?) hysterical about: interracial marriage, gay marriage, not eating fish on Friday,
If actually do think hysteria on the part of a few is justification for censorship and or jail then what is you arguement for that, and where is the line drawn.
Txiasaeia said:
"And what do you think will happen to a child if they came across a picture of a woman fucking a donkey? Or three men fisting each other? Or an avi of a violent gang rape?"
My guess? Nothing again. I've yet to hear what you think would happen, so enlighten me. As well it seems best if children are aware about the realities of the world, anything else is wishful thinking and or deception.
Txiasaeia said:
"Nudity I don't have a problem with, but children should NOT run wild on the Internet, and jokers like this should *not* be redirecting kids (who else is going to the Bob the Builder web site?) to porn, "innocent" or otherwise. Hell, even if I'm standing over my kid's shoulder watching him surf, even seeing a second of such hardcore porn is going to be *extremely* disturbing. Need I remind you of goatse?"
Sure remind me of goatse, and while you are there please describe the harm you think happens when someone, anyone (including children), witnesses goatse, (or anything else for that matter).
"There's no way that you can justify child porno in our society."
What I asked was:
"The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news."
I take your (non)response as a "I am a hypocrite since some illegal things are ok to video tape and promote (like violence) and others are not ok", unless of course you would actually like to reply this time with your arguement as how some illegal things can be censored and others not.
"Child porn is illegal because it does hurt the children (Whether you're causing it to happen, or distributing it, etc.)"
The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news.
"You're joking right? He intentionally misslead childen to a sex site. I don't mean to come off as all "dear god, not the children!", but this guy is scum and deserves it."
What exactly do you think will happen to these children if they view nude bodies?
My guess? Nothing. Why is nudity defacto illegal then? Now *thats* a good question.
"Griffith's patent-pending device essentially eliminates these problems."
Yes, and this is exactly what patents are for, new useful non-obvious inventions. His invention will help a lot of people and I hope he gets money from it so he will be encouraged to make more useful products.
"God, you are a sick person. Suggesting that child porn is somehow "not a big deal" is sick."
Like how black people marrying white people was 'sick' or how gays were (are?) 'sick', how women in the workplace made people 'sick'?
Sick is a little vague, give your reasoning why you think child pornography is wrong.
"Tolerating the existence of it is giving a tacit nod to its production.
Mere possession of same in the US is a crime, and should be. Then again, I have two daughters and I wasn't so militant about the issue before then.
Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task. Yes, that means you, with the mod points. "
I guess then you endorse that movies and news that shows illegal activites like murder, killing etc. should also be illegal and censored, otherwise it encourages and gives as you say 'tacit nod' to these also illegal activities.