Except that he wasn't trying to justify it. Piracy is not theft and that's that.
Yes, I think we all know that by now, but anti-copyright people tend to use the following argument:
"Copyright infringement isn't theft, in fact it's just copying. So, as there is no theft involved there can be no financial or other effect on the copyright holder."
Discussions about the precise definition of "theft" ignore the main question of whether copyright is right or wrong.
Any argument which relies on the concept of patronage as a sensible way to fund artistic endeavour is simply the deranged droolings of a free market fanatic, and tends to make me think that copyright can't actually be that bad an idea if that's the only fucking alternative to rich fucks doling out sweeties to pet performers.
I am going to argue that violating copyright isn't as wrong as comitting a litteral act of piracy (forceful theft at sea, often at gunpoint)
I've just thought of a brilliantly original phrase: "copyright infringement != theft".
I think I should trademark it.
Meanwhile, back in reality, your argument is simply that of a rapist who gets caught and pleads for understanding and leniency on the grounds that at least he hasn't murdered anybody.
the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming
So you're happy with paedophiles getting "release" online by chatting to kids? And you think that all they're going to do is have a crafty wank and not even consider following things through to real life?
Your faith in the goodness of human nature is touching.
> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!
Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.
If it's a question of convicted paedophiles [*] sufferring, I couldn't give a flying one.
[*] I have read all the comments about how in the US you can be put on the sex offeneers' register for pissing against a wall, but that is a separate question of the stupidity of US laws, and nothing to do with preventing genuine predatory paedophiles from harming further victims.
I honestly don't understand why more of them don't just completely snap from all the persecution, get an assault rifle & some ammo, and Lanza out in style. Seriously. If I was told that my life will be a living hell from here on out, and there is no expiration period, and I will be ostracized forever & ever & ever, I would either be on a plane getting the hell out of here permanently, or stocking up on ammo.
Where's Jon Katz to write a sober, sensitive "Hellmouth" style article about all the poor misunderstood paedophiles out there?
Yes, bravo, we all know that the word "paedophile" comes from the Greek for "child-loving" but it is in fact a coinage by Krafft-Ebbing relating specifically to those who have sexual desires towards children, not just a fancy way of saying "someone who likes kids".
And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.
It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.
Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.
It is not a simple black and white matter of being either (a) harmless after a metaphorical slap on the wrist or (b) too dangerous ever to be let out of prison. There are grey areas in betweeen. Some rapists and paedophiles are more dangerous than others
If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.
Shooting them in the head will stop them from both messaging and gaming. If we're already admitting rapists, pedophiliacs, or exhibitionists are not able to be rehabilitated, why bother even pretending they can live a productive and successful life? Just get rid of them, no one wants them around, obviously. Solves the problem, neat and clean.
It may be that in order to be rehabilitated they have to be kept away from certain temptations, so that a partial reduction of their freedom in the short term is better than a permanent ending of their whole life.
So, just to get the Godwin out of the way, if the law says, "turn the Jews over to the paramilitary so they can haul them off for rape, torture, and execution" you should do that, but then vote against the government next election?
Everything comes down to a question of individual conscience, and the ability to organise yourself and others into an effective opposition to such governments/laws. One individual in 1930s Germany wasn't going to make much of a difference, and anyway the trouble was that the majority of the people supported Hitler and were only too glad to see him getting rid of jews and communists.
I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.
The level of illegality in infringing copyright has been (at least up until now in the US) a pretty trivial one, rendering you liable to some small amount of civil damages. The risk/benefit calculation is easy.
If by breaking what you consider a silly law you end up in prison and on a sex offenders register for life, that is in a different league.
If there was some archaic law saying that wearing a yellow hat on a Tuesday was punishable by public flogging, I'd make damned sure I had a large group of supporters and fellow law breakers on my side before I tested its stupidity by protesting outside the police station in a yellow hat on a Tuesday.
Just a note: where I live there are *almost* no public bathrooms. McDonalds only allows some people into theirs and then only if you spend money,
I'd have thought that spending a couple of dollars on a shit-burger or cup of coffee rather than get arrested by the police and put on the sex offenders register, would be a sensible investment if those are the rules where you live.
The only time I've ever had a waz in public is when I've been drunk, and it's not really that big a deal here in the UK. But I'm pretty sure that if it meant getting caught and put on the sex offenders register, I'd make fucking sure I went to the toilet in the last pub I went to. Or, worse come to worse, piss down my trouser leg like the POWs getting rid of soil in The Great Escape.
If you really want sex offenders serving life time sentences, you need to give them life time sentences.
Society has agreed a compromise between simply executing/locking them away for life, and letting them go scot free, by giving them a limited punishment followed up by on-going restrictions on their liberty.
I know slashdotters like things to be black and white, but civilisation doesn't work like that. If a paedophile has served a prison sentence, and is then allowed to live a somewhat restricted life (e.g. by being banned from working in schools or whatever), then yes his "human rights" are being infringed, but also yes, he is allowed more or less a normal life instead of being strung up by his bollocks on a lamppost.
It's no different than not allowing sex offenders to live within X miles of schools.
Which is often a human rights violation in and of itself. Do you have any idea how common schools are? X miles often puts these people out of fair housing.
Comments like this result from the belief that everyone has an absolutely equal set of rights that should never be infringed on. If that were the case we shouldn't ever lock people up in prison, as physical incarceration is about as fundamental a limitation of your rights as it is possible to imagine.
That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.
You do not appear to have heard of the concept of parole.
Slashdot Mirror
to justify a piracy site
Except that he wasn't trying to justify it. Piracy is not theft and that's that.
Yes, I think we all know that by now, but anti-copyright people tend to use the following argument:
"Copyright infringement isn't theft, in fact it's just copying. So, as there is no theft involved there can be no financial or other effect on the copyright holder."
Discussions about the precise definition of "theft" ignore the main question of whether copyright is right or wrong.
Oh wow, the piracy / physical theft analogy. Looks like the first Slashdot troll of the year!
Looks like the first Slashdot retard of the year who thinks that anyone who disagrees with their world view is a troll.
Any argument which relies on the concept of patronage as a sensible way to fund artistic endeavour is simply the deranged droolings of a free market fanatic, and tends to make me think that copyright can't actually be that bad an idea if that's the only fucking alternative to rich fucks doling out sweeties to pet performers.
I am going to argue that violating copyright isn't as wrong as comitting a litteral act of piracy (forceful theft at sea, often at gunpoint)
I've just thought of a brilliantly original phrase: "copyright infringement != theft".
I think I should trademark it.
Meanwhile, back in reality, your argument is simply that of a rapist who gets caught and pleads for understanding and leniency on the grounds that at least he hasn't murdered anybody.
And then I see that our President got a Nobel for what, again?
For being black, d'uh.
No, it was for not being George W Bush.
Aspergers alert! Aspergers alert!! *whoop* *whoop* We have a level 5 Aspergers emergency here people!
I think that just counts as background noise on slashdot.
Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game
I hate to break this to you, but children can't be raped through playing a video game. At least, not until the teledildonics technology improves.
Yes, because "through" has the one simple meaning of "directly by way of" and can't possibly mean "as an agent or indirect cause of".
Obviously you can't meet someone through an online dating service, since neither of you can travel over the interwebs, so it's all just a big lie.
the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming
So you're happy with paedophiles getting "release" online by chatting to kids? And you think that all they're going to do is have a crafty wank and not even consider following things through to real life?
Your faith in the goodness of human nature is touching.
> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!
Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.
If it's a question of convicted paedophiles [*] sufferring, I couldn't give a flying one.
[*] I have read all the comments about how in the US you can be put on the sex offeneers' register for pissing against a wall, but that is a separate question of the stupidity of US laws, and nothing to do with preventing genuine predatory paedophiles from harming further victims.
Lat time I checked, you can't rape people over the internet.
Yeah, lucky there's no such thing as grooming isn't it?
I honestly don't understand why more of them don't just completely snap from all the persecution, get an assault rifle & some ammo, and Lanza out in style. Seriously. If I was told that my life will be a living hell from here on out, and there is no expiration period, and I will be ostracized forever & ever & ever, I would either be on a plane getting the hell out of here permanently, or stocking up on ammo.
Where's Jon Katz to write a sober, sensitive "Hellmouth" style article about all the poor misunderstood paedophiles out there?
A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.
Yes, bravo, we all know that the word "paedophile" comes from the Greek for "child-loving" but it is in fact a coinage by Krafft-Ebbing relating specifically to those who have sexual desires towards children, not just a fancy way of saying "someone who likes kids".
And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.
They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.
You'd have to have strict vetting and moderation so that no pervy kids could join who were just pretending to be paedophiles.
It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.
Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.
It is not a simple black and white matter of being either (a) harmless after a metaphorical slap on the wrist or (b) too dangerous ever to be let out of prison. There are grey areas in betweeen. Some rapists and paedophiles are more dangerous than others
It should not be that sex offenders are banned from gaming. They can't play games why? It's just a game. I don't understand this logic.
Online games mean that real people can talk to each other, as in a real paedophile and a real vulnerable child.
It's really not that hard.
You might as well say "what's the harm in paedophiles chatting to children online, it's only an internet forum".
Newsflash: the online and real worlds do coincide sometimes.
If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.
Shooting them in the head will stop them from both messaging and gaming. If we're already admitting rapists, pedophiliacs, or exhibitionists are not able to be rehabilitated, why bother even pretending they can live a productive and successful life? Just get rid of them, no one wants them around, obviously. Solves the problem, neat and clean.
It may be that in order to be rehabilitated they have to be kept away from certain temptations, so that a partial reduction of their freedom in the short term is better than a permanent ending of their whole life.
Just a thought.
I'd rather side with pedos than with people who crap out laws like that.
Think rationally about it: The pedos will never harm me. Those laws, on the other hand, might if I take a piss in the wrong spot.
I'm taking a wild guess, but you don't have any kids do you?
So, just to get the Godwin out of the way, if the law says, "turn the Jews over to the paramilitary so they can haul them off for rape, torture, and execution" you should do that, but then vote against the government next election?
Everything comes down to a question of individual conscience, and the ability to organise yourself and others into an effective opposition to such governments/laws. One individual in 1930s Germany wasn't going to make much of a difference, and anyway the trouble was that the majority of the people supported Hitler and were only too glad to see him getting rid of jews and communists.
I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.
The level of illegality in infringing copyright has been (at least up until now in the US) a pretty trivial one, rendering you liable to some small amount of civil damages. The risk/benefit calculation is easy.
If by breaking what you consider a silly law you end up in prison and on a sex offenders register for life, that is in a different league.
If there was some archaic law saying that wearing a yellow hat on a Tuesday was punishable by public flogging, I'd make damned sure I had a large group of supporters and fellow law breakers on my side before I tested its stupidity by protesting outside the police station in a yellow hat on a Tuesday.
Just a note: where I live there are *almost* no public bathrooms. McDonalds only allows some people into theirs and then only if you spend money,
I'd have thought that spending a couple of dollars on a shit-burger or cup of coffee rather than get arrested by the police and put on the sex offenders register, would be a sensible investment if those are the rules where you live.
The only time I've ever had a waz in public is when I've been drunk, and it's not really that big a deal here in the UK. But I'm pretty sure that if it meant getting caught and put on the sex offenders register, I'd make fucking sure I went to the toilet in the last pub I went to. Or, worse come to worse, piss down my trouser leg like the POWs getting rid of soil in The Great Escape.
p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!
Only in the US, as far as I know. Most countries restrict being put on a sex offenders' register to actual paedophiles and rapists.
If you really want sex offenders serving life time sentences, you need to give them life time sentences.
Society has agreed a compromise between simply executing/locking them away for life, and letting them go scot free, by giving them a limited punishment followed up by on-going restrictions on their liberty.
I know slashdotters like things to be black and white, but civilisation doesn't work like that. If a paedophile has served a prison sentence, and is then allowed to live a somewhat restricted life (e.g. by being banned from working in schools or whatever), then yes his "human rights" are being infringed, but also yes, he is allowed more or less a normal life instead of being strung up by his bollocks on a lamppost.
It's no different than not allowing sex offenders to live within X miles of schools.
Which is often a human rights violation in and of itself. Do you have any idea how common schools are? X miles often puts these people out of fair housing.
Comments like this result from the belief that everyone has an absolutely equal set of rights that should never be infringed on. If that were the case we shouldn't ever lock people up in prison, as physical incarceration is about as fundamental a limitation of your rights as it is possible to imagine.
Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."
And for the real pervs "My Little Pony Bang Bang."
That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.
You do not appear to have heard of the concept of parole.