There is a difference between believing in vile things and acting them out in real life. You can have fantasies about torturing and mutilating children and animals, that doesn't mean society has to permit you to actually do that so as to avoid impinging on your precious freedom.
I am hearing about a lot of kids that are 14 year olds that had sex with OTHER 14 year olds. So legally both of them are raping children.
Yes, but they're both minors so the law can't touch them.
Bullshit. Do you really think that if a 14 year old (say) murdered someone, they would be untouchable by the law? They might not be tried as an adult in an adult court, but there are youth courts and so on.
In most normal countries if the age of consent was 15 no one would bother prosecuting two normal 14 year olds who had consensual sex , because that is a totally different case from a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old (or whatever).
Age of consent is different in different places (and should be - the demands and responsibility that lead to adult decision making cability come early in some cultures, and late in others), but there's only one internet.
There is nothing magical about the internet. If something is illegal in your country/culture, it is illegal over the internet too. If the age of consent is 14 in your country, then porn with 14 year olds shouldn't be illegal anyway. That doesn't mean that if the age of consent in your country is 18, you get a free pass to download porn with 14 year olds just because it's on the internet rather than in a printed magazine.
The whole thing about it being legal to have sex at 16 but not take naked pictures of yourself at 16 is just a case of stupid, inconsistent laws, it has nothing to do with actual child abuse.
That said if also opens up some benefits of research. There is no way you can now research if giving a paedophile child porn will reduce or encourage the chance he does something to children.
That is like saying that we should make murder legal so that we can study the fascinating psychology of serial killers more easily. Some things are just wrong, and if people choose to do them they should be punished. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter why someone wants to torture and murder people, they just need to be stopped from doing so if possible.
By making it legal, and especially legal only when its completely without being for profit, you can ensure the profit for making child porn is very low or none.
People who make and distribute child sexual abuse imagery do not do so primarily for financial reasons. It is (quite rightly in my opinion) a highly risky way of making money.
Also, I don't see how you can possibly stop people making money from it if is legalised.
The whole notion of internet freedom is irrelevant in all this. If something is illegal in real life, it is illegal on the internet. If you live in a country where criticising the emperor/party is illegal, then doing so over the internet is illegal too. If it's illegal to possess printed photos of children being raped, it's illegal to have them on your computer.
No, I am suggesting that for me and many steam users that is why they don't care. Because we do buy cheap games.
The fact that you can buy cheap older games on Steam is irrelevant to any discussion about the pricing of current console or PC games. If I go to one of my local supermarkets, I can get plenty of games for under GBP 10 as well. But they won't be the latest versions, so it's a meaningless comparison.
Sure it does, company produces crippled platform, protest by not buying it. Perfectly valid reason.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid my friend...
As usual on slashdot you're only thinking of your own usage. My wife and kids have a Wii and a few games, all of which have only ever been played in our house. It makes no difference whether the games are tied by DRM or fucking voodoo to our machine, we're not going to sell them on anyway, except possibly if we sell the whole thing, console and all (not that anyone would buy it, I suppose).
But with this new system, your mate will still be able to bring along his own Xbox and let you play his own copy of COD 4 on it.
You will still have to buy your own Xbox to play the game if your mate's not there. Yes, you will have to buy a copy of the game instead of borrowing his, but so what? If it's that great you'd want to have your own copy anyway.
On another silly note. I deserve profits for life because i worked on construction of all MPAA buildings. I'll be waiting for my royalty check you deadbeat fucks.
Sounds pretty stupid. But hey. That's what you're arguing on some non physical property. So pay me now. Or forever shut the fuck up.
Counter-analogy. I am an architect who designs a new type of office block. In my contract, it says that instead of being a one-off fee up front, for each block built, I get 5% of the gross sales proceeds.
What happens if someone acquires a copy of my blueprints and builds an exact copy of my office block?
My answer would be that I should be able to sue them for the 5% of gross I didn't get. But people here would presumably say it's just tough luck, because that person only copied the building. However, they have made at least the 5% additional profit through not having to pay me.
it's also a useful solution to the orphan works problem.
No it's not. We want orphaned works to pass into public domain, not being taken by someone else.
Take a song like The House of the Rising Sun. The original writer is unknown. The oldest known recording is from 1934. If Asley and Foster would have been able to claim that song as theirs then The Animals would not have been able to do their version in the 60's.
Why wouldn't they? If you mean, they wouldn't have been able to do it for zero cost, that's a different question.
Excuse me if I'm being stupid, but I thought the whole point of copyright was that anyone could copy the work, for a fee.
If Asley and Foster didn't write the song in 1934, they wouldn't have been able to copyright it anyway, they could just have copyrighted their performance (somehow).
"Oh boy oh boy, it seems british judges haven't lost their fucking minds."
If so then the US Supreme Court has too, since they long ago similarly ruled that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.
I really don't understand why everyone here makes such a big deal out of this. Is theft some special, awful crime in the US? Is being a thief worse than being a rapist, paedophile, mugger of old ladies or card cheat man?
Everyone wastes so much time arguing about an exact physical analogy to copyright infringement that the main issue (without copyright, creators get no financial reward for their work) goes ignored.
If a bank robber buys a map in order to find the way to the bank he is going to rob, is then the owner of the shop selling him the map guilty of receiving the proceeds of the crime?
Well, how about if the owner of a gun shop knowingly sold a would-be bank robber a gun that was used in a bank robbery?
If a gas station is operating in an area where many arsonists are operating, and it turns out that quite a few arsonists bought the gas they used to burn down houses at that gas station, is the owner of the gas station then guilty of arson?
He is certainly guilty of being an accessory to arson if he knew the gas was being used for arson, yes. And if an unusually high number of kids came in on foot to buy the gas in small quantities, it is arguable that he should be suspicious and do something about it anyway.
You need to be careful with analogies, they don't always help your argument, as your question was clearly expecting a reply of "no, of course not, that would be ludicrous, blah blah blah."
I love the masses of people that get up in arms about irritating children every time that they want to build a cell tower. These same parents are perfectly fine with giving their children devices with transmitters to hold an inch from their brain, but a tower 1/4 mile away will give everybody cancer and must be stopped.
To be fair, I'm sure the output of the tower is a bit more than one mobile phone, and yes I do know about the inverse square law.
Isn't the best-case scenario these people putting the phone on speaker and setting it on the center console? That gets it out of the shoulder/head/hands entirely.
Ah, but there's a conflict between "wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the phone/government waves out of your brain" and "submitting to the government imposition on my freedom to phone however and whenever I want to". Tricky one.
Getting a PhD anywhere should be a hardship. If you could just get one by sending off a coupon on the back of a cornflakes packet it wouldn't mean a lot.
"His doctorate is an honorary one, bestowed by the Bob Jones University, in South Carolina but he likes to use the title."
In other news, Bob Jones University is some sort of racist Xian degree mill, and amusingly it's logo is a "BJ", which would probably appall the fascists in charge if they knew what it meant.
The only thing I ever use the # of digits for is to get a sense of who is probably-better-informed via a low id (less then 6 digit id) vs who is probably a noob / naive (7+ digit id).
The fact that someone registered with slashdot fifteen years ago and got a low ID is proof that they registered with slashdot fifteen years ago and got a low ID, not that they're a Nobel prize winner or something.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between believing in vile things and acting them out in real life. You can have fantasies about torturing and mutilating children and animals, that doesn't mean society has to permit you to actually do that so as to avoid impinging on your precious freedom.
I am hearing about a lot of kids that are 14 year olds that had sex with OTHER 14 year olds. So legally both of them are raping children.
Yes, but they're both minors so the law can't touch them.
Bullshit. Do you really think that if a 14 year old (say) murdered someone, they would be untouchable by the law? They might not be tried as an adult in an adult court, but there are youth courts and so on.
In most normal countries if the age of consent was 15 no one would bother prosecuting two normal 14 year olds who had consensual sex , because that is a totally different case from a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old (or whatever).
Then enforce your rules on your population and leave other countries alone.
Isn't that what Finland are doing?
They're not saying they want to censor the whole internet, they're just saying that they'll block access to certain sites in Finland.
Age of consent is different in different places (and should be - the demands and responsibility that lead to adult decision making cability come early in some cultures, and late in others), but there's only one internet.
There is nothing magical about the internet. If something is illegal in your country/culture, it is illegal over the internet too. If the age of consent is 14 in your country, then porn with 14 year olds shouldn't be illegal anyway. That doesn't mean that if the age of consent in your country is 18, you get a free pass to download porn with 14 year olds just because it's on the internet rather than in a printed magazine.
The whole thing about it being legal to have sex at 16 but not take naked pictures of yourself at 16 is just a case of stupid, inconsistent laws, it has nothing to do with actual child abuse.
That said if also opens up some benefits of research. There is no way you can now research if giving a paedophile child porn will reduce or encourage the chance he does something to children.
That is like saying that we should make murder legal so that we can study the fascinating psychology of serial killers more easily. Some things are just wrong, and if people choose to do them they should be punished. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter why someone wants to torture and murder people, they just need to be stopped from doing so if possible.
By making it legal, and especially legal only when its completely without being for profit, you can ensure the profit for making child porn is very low or none.
People who make and distribute child sexual abuse imagery do not do so primarily for financial reasons. It is (quite rightly in my opinion) a highly risky way of making money.
Also, I don't see how you can possibly stop people making money from it if is legalised.
The whole notion of internet freedom is irrelevant in all this. If something is illegal in real life, it is illegal on the internet. If you live in a country where criticising the emperor/party is illegal, then doing so over the internet is illegal too. If it's illegal to possess printed photos of children being raped, it's illegal to have them on your computer.
No, I am suggesting that for me and many steam users that is why they don't care. Because we do buy cheap games.
The fact that you can buy cheap older games on Steam is irrelevant to any discussion about the pricing of current console or PC games. If I go to one of my local supermarkets, I can get plenty of games for under GBP 10 as well. But they won't be the latest versions, so it's a meaningless comparison.
Steam can't help if the Publisher of a Given Game is a JackA3
If you feel incapable of typing the word "jackass" in full because you think it's grossly offensive, you shouldn't be using it at all.
People that own only a Wii do not count as a gamer.
And No True Gamer would ever own a Wii anyway, amirite?
Sure it does, company produces crippled platform, protest by not buying it. Perfectly valid reason.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid my friend...
As usual on slashdot you're only thinking of your own usage. My wife and kids have a Wii and a few games, all of which have only ever been played in our house. It makes no difference whether the games are tied by DRM or fucking voodoo to our machine, we're not going to sell them on anyway, except possibly if we sell the whole thing, console and all (not that anyone would buy it, I suppose).
You will still have to buy your own Xbox to play the game if your mate's not there. Yes, you will have to buy a copy of the game instead of borrowing his, but so what? If it's that great you'd want to have your own copy anyway.
On another silly note. I deserve profits for life because i worked on construction of all MPAA buildings. I'll be waiting for my royalty check you deadbeat fucks. Sounds pretty stupid. But hey. That's what you're arguing on some non physical property. So pay me now. Or forever shut the fuck up.
Counter-analogy. I am an architect who designs a new type of office block. In my contract, it says that instead of being a one-off fee up front, for each block built, I get 5% of the gross sales proceeds.
What happens if someone acquires a copy of my blueprints and builds an exact copy of my office block?
My answer would be that I should be able to sue them for the 5% of gross I didn't get. But people here would presumably say it's just tough luck, because that person only copied the building. However, they have made at least the 5% additional profit through not having to pay me.
it's also a useful solution to the orphan works problem.
No it's not. We want orphaned works to pass into public domain, not being taken by someone else. Take a song like The House of the Rising Sun. The original writer is unknown. The oldest known recording is from 1934. If Asley and Foster would have been able to claim that song as theirs then The Animals would not have been able to do their version in the 60's.
Why wouldn't they? If you mean, they wouldn't have been able to do it for zero cost, that's a different question.
Excuse me if I'm being stupid, but I thought the whole point of copyright was that anyone could copy the work, for a fee.
If Asley and Foster didn't write the song in 1934, they wouldn't have been able to copyright it anyway, they could just have copyrighted their performance (somehow).
"Oh boy oh boy, it seems british judges haven't lost their fucking minds."
If so then the US Supreme Court has too, since they long ago similarly ruled that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.
I really don't understand why everyone here makes such a big deal out of this. Is theft some special, awful crime in the US? Is being a thief worse than being a rapist, paedophile, mugger of old ladies or card cheat man?
Everyone wastes so much time arguing about an exact physical analogy to copyright infringement that the main issue (without copyright, creators get no financial reward for their work) goes ignored.
If a bank robber buys a map in order to find the way to the bank he is going to rob, is then the owner of the shop selling him the map guilty of receiving the proceeds of the crime?
Well, how about if the owner of a gun shop knowingly sold a would-be bank robber a gun that was used in a bank robbery?
If a gas station is operating in an area where many arsonists are operating, and it turns out that quite a few arsonists bought the gas they used to burn down houses at that gas station, is the owner of the gas station then guilty of arson?
He is certainly guilty of being an accessory to arson if he knew the gas was being used for arson, yes. And if an unusually high number of kids came in on foot to buy the gas in small quantities, it is arguable that he should be suspicious and do something about it anyway.
You need to be careful with analogies, they don't always help your argument, as your question was clearly expecting a reply of "no, of course not, that would be ludicrous, blah blah blah."
I love the masses of people that get up in arms about irritating children every time that they want to build a cell tower. These same parents are perfectly fine with giving their children devices with transmitters to hold an inch from their brain, but a tower 1/4 mile away will give everybody cancer and must be stopped.
To be fair, I'm sure the output of the tower is a bit more than one mobile phone, and yes I do know about the inverse square law.
You'll have to talk a bit louder so that the person you are calling hears you.
Just tie a piece of string between the two phones. I'm sure there's an app for that.
how is it going to affect you if you don't feel any heat?
Gravity waves, obviously. You people with your electromagnetism-centric attitude.
Isn't the best-case scenario these people putting the phone on speaker and setting it on the center console? That gets it out of the shoulder/head/hands entirely.
Ah, but there's a conflict between "wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the phone/government waves out of your brain" and "submitting to the government imposition on my freedom to phone however and whenever I want to". Tricky one.
She has got neither B.S. nor M.S, going straight for the PhD after her high school diploma.
Is that normal in Germany? I'm pretty sure you couldn't do that here in the UK even if you were some sort of genius.
Getting a PhD in Germany is a hardship
Getting a PhD anywhere should be a hardship. If you could just get one by sending off a coupon on the back of a cornflakes packet it wouldn't mean a lot.
Since he's gay, in an entertaining turnaround from the usual, he comments on other male computer scientists hotness
That would be like one of those joke "The World's Shortest Books..." lists, presumably.
"His doctorate is an honorary one, bestowed by the Bob Jones University, in South Carolina but he likes to use the title."
In other news, Bob Jones University is some sort of racist Xian degree mill, and amusingly it's logo is a "BJ", which would probably appall the fascists in charge if they knew what it meant.
Interesting post but you spoiled it with "crowdsourced". The last thing a slashdot-style site needs is a flood of GNAA troll-crap on the front page.
The only thing I ever use the # of digits for is to get a sense of who is probably-better-informed via a low id (less then 6 digit id) vs who is probably a noob / naive (7+ digit id).
The fact that someone registered with slashdot fifteen years ago and got a low ID is proof that they registered with slashdot fifteen years ago and got a low ID, not that they're a Nobel prize winner or something.