So they want their forever teenage libertarian floating island as long as they are the ones in charge.
What part of "libertarian" do you not understand?
I think GP understands libertarianism pretty well. It is a system where the rich and powerful have absolute freedom to do what they want, in precisely the same way that an adolescent dreams of being freed from the constraints of his parents.
Isn't HGH illegal unless it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition? This sounds like a [at best] "I paid a doctor a bunch of money to prescribe it for me" situation.
The word "illegal" applies only to sheeple. This guy's a fucking Randian superman: he's going to live forever, he's paid his guys to find a cure for cancer and his primary residence is almost certainly inside a hollowed out volcano.
If you're going to try to justify your utter selfishness you need to try harder than citing some third rate novelist and amateur "philosopher".
For those of us not in the US, name-dropping Ayn Rand is analogous to saying you've read the great philosophers like Norman Vincent Peale (in Tom Lehrer's words).
You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.
That's right, the security/intelligence services here in the UK just do all that wiretapping and spying for the lulz, they have no intention of ever using it in court.
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
The following are all self-evident facts to the slashdot hive mind: all software should be free as in beer as well as free in freedom; communism and socialism are evil; the US is the best place to live in the world; any form of space exploration is automatically a Good Thing, no matter the cost; NASA is evil; The Government is evil; Microsoft is evil; there is no such thing as racism in the US any longer; all Cops are psychopathic murderers; anyone in the Military is a hero; all Muslims are basically terrorists-in-waiting; abortion is a terrible thing; rape is almost entirely imaginary, except when it happens to heterosexual men, when it is appalling; women just aren't good at maths and computer science; anyone who isn't a well off Western computer programmer has only themselves to blame; cars lend themselves well to analogies; Europe is an homogenous socialist bloc; Uber is a great service; Sony Pictures deserve to die even though they're nothing to do with Sony who make the Playstation; everyone should be armed at all times; Africans are genetically inferior or else they wouldn't catch Ebola; libertarianism is a sensible political philosophy.
Anyone who disagrees with any of these is simply lying and/or a troll.
already figured out. Bach's music is played by an artist who gets to copyright that recording.
I discovered this trying to put a Claudio Arrau recording of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata as music for one of my videos on youtube.
Copyright protected. Bullshit.
Fuck Sony.
You are perfectly free to learn to play the piano as well as Claudio Arrau and record your own version of the Moonlight Sonata, you know.
I could train to be an automotive engineer, design and build my own car, and not have to pay Ford ten grand, but guess what's easier?
The public should not be permitted to benefit from anybody's creativity unless they pay through the nose for it, forever. Screw culture.
Where by "pay through the nose" you mean "pay".
If culture should be free, so should everything else. Otherwise, it's just artists who have to work for nothing, and not computer programmers or burger flippers.
When arguing about copyright law, always keep in mind... the people that "own" these copyrights are almost never the artists or their families. Business own then and the attempts to extend copyright into perpetuity has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the creator of the music. It has to do with extending what was usually a theft from an artist, into a theft from mankind as a whole.
That would be an incredibly easy thing to solve by not allowing the transfer of copyrights at all, either to corporations or your own children.
Although to be fair, most arts aren't run by such blatant crooks as the music industry.
Seriously, if they're out-takes, they weren't considered good enough to release. Releasing them goes against both the original musicians' wishes and foists crap on the general public because "otherwise you don't have the complete set."
No one's forcing you to buy the out-takes are they?
If people find them interesting enough, good luck to them.
It's like reading the original manuscript of a poem or novel, and seeing what was changed before publication. Unless you're a really dedicated fan, it probably wouldn't be of much interest, but for scholars it can be fascinating.
Having said that, you'd only normally do this after the artist was dead.
Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
All scarcity is artificial. There is no logical reason why all physical and non physical things should not be shared equally.
"Ownership" is an entirely man-made concept: it's just human beings deciding how to organise themselves, not a law of nature or God.
The 'noble' intentions of copyright are irrelevant. The law is being used as very effective weapon of censorship. That is its intention.
Yes, if your definition of "censorship" is "having to pay a small amount of money to access a piece of popular culture".
If everyone who disapproved of copyright was a believer in pure communism, with everything shared equally, I would be quite happy to agree with them.
As it is, in a capitalist society, what exactly do you expect artists to live on? Oh, I forgot, live performances, because it's so easy to go to a gig whenever I want to listen to some music or hear some poetry, that it makes you wonder why they invented MP3s or books..
Just explain to me why an artist should be entitled to live off one single creation for the rest of his life while everyone else has to keep working to earn money.
If you work as a secretary, mechanic or shop assistant, you (generally) get paid according to the time you spend at work.
There is no current mechanism for paying artists who are sitting at home and writing/practising/thinking. You could go back to a system of aristocratic patronage, or have Soviet style "official artists" paid by the State, of course.
In the meantime, copyright provides money to artists in proportion to how many people buy their work, so it's better than nothing.
So is the bricklayer that built my house. I can't remember paying him a dime in the last 20 or so years, though.
Bricklayers get paid an hourly wage for the work they do when they do it, and can work productively for forty plus hours a week all through the year. Also, bricklayers are more or less fungible.
You can't really compare bricklayers and musicians.
The whole idea of copyright may be untenable nowadays, but in principle it is just a way of paying artists for their work. If you got rid of copyright, you'd need to find another way of rewarding them, as the idea of just having amateur artists is deeply problematic.
Yes, and I only ever use BitTorrent to download Linux ISOs, therefore BT is 100% legitimate, and it is wrong to target people using it to distribute child sex abuse images.
I friend of mine that is a cop once told me that he could pull anyone over at any time. Why? Because there are 1000's of traffic laws and you are breaking one every time you drive. When I asked which one I was breaking as we were driving down the street he responded "You are not preceded by a man caring a red flag." Seems the law was and may still be on the books from the early 1900's.
Bullshit. That would be laughed out of court, even if by some weird oversight it had been left on the books, which I find hard to believe in the first place.
The argument that there are so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every minute of the day, and so The Government can just pull you in and lock you up for life on a whim, is just an excuse to justify breaking any law that inconveniences you, on the basis that all laws are equally absurd.
I don't understand how they can present the evidence of wrong doing if they don't say how they obtained the evidence. If they illegally hacked into his servers...then no, it shouldn't be admissible.
It's a publicly accessible site, surely all they have to do is get access as a user and see that illegal transactions are taking place?
Just because it's not as simple as typing "where can I buy illegal drugs online" into Google, potential buyers and sellers must be able to find out what's on there.
I don't know, because the idea of buying something illegal online seems pretty stupid to me, but if Joe Methhead can find out how to buy his supplies, it can't be that difficult for the FBI to do the same.
Your reading comprehension is below par. OP didn't say he knew the significant number of people personally, only that he knew (had knowledge that) they exist.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "libertarian" do you not understand?
I think GP understands libertarianism pretty well. It is a system where the rich and powerful have absolute freedom to do what they want, in precisely the same way that an adolescent dreams of being freed from the constraints of his parents.
Isn't HGH illegal unless it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition? This sounds like a [at best] "I paid a doctor a bunch of money to prescribe it for me" situation.
The word "illegal" applies only to sheeple. This guy's a fucking Randian superman: he's going to live forever, he's paid his guys to find a cure for cancer and his primary residence is almost certainly inside a hollowed out volcano.
There are actuarial tables that show life expectancy for people at different ages.
What, including the Paleolithic Era? I'm impressed.
You're right, of course. All those pesky health and safety laws are nothing more than interference with The Invisible Hand.
For those of us not in the US, name-dropping Ayn Rand is analogous to saying you've read the great philosophers like Norman Vincent Peale (in Tom Lehrer's words).
You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.
That's right, the security/intelligence services here in the UK just do all that wiretapping and spying for the lulz, they have no intention of ever using it in court.
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
The following are all self-evident facts to the slashdot hive mind: all software should be free as in beer as well as free in freedom; communism and socialism are evil; the US is the best place to live in the world; any form of space exploration is automatically a Good Thing, no matter the cost; NASA is evil; The Government is evil; Microsoft is evil; there is no such thing as racism in the US any longer; all Cops are psychopathic murderers; anyone in the Military is a hero; all Muslims are basically terrorists-in-waiting; abortion is a terrible thing; rape is almost entirely imaginary, except when it happens to heterosexual men, when it is appalling; women just aren't good at maths and computer science; anyone who isn't a well off Western computer programmer has only themselves to blame; cars lend themselves well to analogies; Europe is an homogenous socialist bloc; Uber is a great service; Sony Pictures deserve to die even though they're nothing to do with Sony who make the Playstation; everyone should be armed at all times; Africans are genetically inferior or else they wouldn't catch Ebola; libertarianism is a sensible political philosophy.
Anyone who disagrees with any of these is simply lying and/or a troll.
already figured out. Bach's music is played by an artist who gets to copyright that recording.
I discovered this trying to put a Claudio Arrau recording of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata as music for one of my videos on youtube.
Copyright protected. Bullshit.
Fuck Sony.
You are perfectly free to learn to play the piano as well as Claudio Arrau and record your own version of the Moonlight Sonata, you know.
I could train to be an automotive engineer, design and build my own car, and not have to pay Ford ten grand, but guess what's easier?
The public should not be permitted to benefit from anybody's creativity unless they pay through the nose for it, forever. Screw culture.
Where by "pay through the nose" you mean "pay".
If culture should be free, so should everything else. Otherwise, it's just artists who have to work for nothing, and not computer programmers or burger flippers.
When arguing about copyright law, always keep in mind... the people that "own" these copyrights are almost never the artists or their families. Business own then and the attempts to extend copyright into perpetuity has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the creator of the music. It has to do with extending what was usually a theft from an artist, into a theft from mankind as a whole.
That would be an incredibly easy thing to solve by not allowing the transfer of copyrights at all, either to corporations or your own children.
Although to be fair, most arts aren't run by such blatant crooks as the music industry.
Seriously, if they're out-takes, they weren't considered good enough to release. Releasing them goes against both the original musicians' wishes and foists crap on the general public because "otherwise you don't have the complete set."
No one's forcing you to buy the out-takes are they?
If people find them interesting enough, good luck to them.
It's like reading the original manuscript of a poem or novel, and seeing what was changed before publication. Unless you're a really dedicated fan, it probably wouldn't be of much interest, but for scholars it can be fascinating.
Having said that, you'd only normally do this after the artist was dead.
Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
All scarcity is artificial. There is no logical reason why all physical and non physical things should not be shared equally.
"Ownership" is an entirely man-made concept: it's just human beings deciding how to organise themselves, not a law of nature or God.
But on slashdot capitalism's wonderful because it lets a few code monkeys become billionaires.
Be honest, no matter how much you love your work, would you do it without getting paid for it?
No, but an artist would. That is why it is meaningless to compare Mozart with an IT drone.
That is one of the feeblest arguments about anything that I have ever read anywhere on the internet.
The 'noble' intentions of copyright are irrelevant. The law is being used as very effective weapon of censorship. That is its intention.
Yes, if your definition of "censorship" is "having to pay a small amount of money to access a piece of popular culture".
If everyone who disapproved of copyright was a believer in pure communism, with everything shared equally, I would be quite happy to agree with them.
As it is, in a capitalist society, what exactly do you expect artists to live on? Oh, I forgot, live performances, because it's so easy to go to a gig whenever I want to listen to some music or hear some poetry, that it makes you wonder why they invented MP3s or books..
Just explain to me why an artist should be entitled to live off one single creation for the rest of his life while everyone else has to keep working to earn money.
If you work as a secretary, mechanic or shop assistant, you (generally) get paid according to the time you spend at work.
There is no current mechanism for paying artists who are sitting at home and writing/practising/thinking. You could go back to a system of aristocratic patronage, or have Soviet style "official artists" paid by the State, of course.
In the meantime, copyright provides money to artists in proportion to how many people buy their work, so it's better than nothing.
So is the bricklayer that built my house. I can't remember paying him a dime in the last 20 or so years, though.
Bricklayers get paid an hourly wage for the work they do when they do it, and can work productively for forty plus hours a week all through the year. Also, bricklayers are more or less fungible.
You can't really compare bricklayers and musicians.
The whole idea of copyright may be untenable nowadays, but in principle it is just a way of paying artists for their work. If you got rid of copyright, you'd need to find another way of rewarding them, as the idea of just having amateur artists is deeply problematic.
Yes, and I only ever use BitTorrent to download Linux ISOs, therefore BT is 100% legitimate, and it is wrong to target people using it to distribute child sex abuse images.
I friend of mine that is a cop once told me that he could pull anyone over at any time. Why? Because there are 1000's of traffic laws and you are breaking one every time you drive. When I asked which one I was breaking as we were driving down the street he responded "You are not preceded by a man caring a red flag." Seems the law was and may still be on the books from the early 1900's.
Bullshit. That would be laughed out of court, even if by some weird oversight it had been left on the books, which I find hard to believe in the first place.
The argument that there are so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every minute of the day, and so The Government can just pull you in and lock you up for life on a whim, is just an excuse to justify breaking any law that inconveniences you, on the basis that all laws are equally absurd.
I don't understand how they can present the evidence of wrong doing if they don't say how they obtained the evidence. If they illegally hacked into his servers...then no, it shouldn't be admissible.
It's a publicly accessible site, surely all they have to do is get access as a user and see that illegal transactions are taking place?
Just because it's not as simple as typing "where can I buy illegal drugs online" into Google, potential buyers and sellers must be able to find out what's on there.
I don't know, because the idea of buying something illegal online seems pretty stupid to me, but if Joe Methhead can find out how to buy his supplies, it can't be that difficult for the FBI to do the same.
Congratulations on getting away with breaking the law.
Your reading comprehension is below par. OP didn't say he knew the significant number of people personally, only that he knew (had knowledge that) they exist.
By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist"
It's like how "politically correct" really means "moderately polite" and "Social Justice Warrior" means "not an ultra-reactionary bigot".
Sometimes on slashdot you need the equivalent of Google Translate to turn right iwng hate speech into normal English.
the universal news media blackout
There has certainly been an absence of stories in the news media that support the people making threats of death and rape, if that's what you mean.
All part of the feminist conspiracy no doubt.