I learned decades ago to avoid science fiction written by females after reading some Andre Norton crap.
I learned decades ago to avoid science fiction written by males after reading some L Ron Hubbard crap. Oh no, I didn't because that would be fucking stupid wouldn't it?
Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be some sort lawyer just to live.
It's an inevitable result of the common law legal system as opposed to the more codified European systems. You can't just turn to page 6942 of the Bumper Book of Laws and find your answer written down for you.
You are the one who puts profits ahead of human lives and the greater good. Why don't you stop doing that?
You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
Non-criminal profits are orthogonal to the greater good. They may or may not coincide, but they are not identical.
Indeed, they stormed the prime ministerial residence and strung him up and his wife from a lamppost, after capturing and executing all the Icelandic armed forces and police.
Welfare, the great shackle of society. Want to keep people pitiless, penniless, and defeated, then put them on a government subsidized free hand out scheme where ambition is killed, apathy and cynicism are promoted.
Yeah, it's evil socialism taking away people's freedom to starve like in the good old days.
I have a pet conspiracy theory that the political and business elite in the western world (okay, fine, the United States) engages in activities to keep its population intellectually sedate through its entertainment industry and overly calorie-ridden food (do you really need HFCS in your bread?).
When people get fat and lazy and distracted, they stop caring about things that require effort of thought and people in power can get away with whatever they want.
No one forces you to watch and eat crap all the time. It's a choice.
"Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. "
Contrary to popular belief, if a person can't make ends meet with their current job, they're actually free to rethink their career choices. They aren't OWED a paycheck just because they (claim to) love doing something.
I tend to work on making new games for old consoles. I know I can't put a roof over my head doing that no matter how much I enjoy it. That doesn't stop me from doing it in my spare time while I work a REAL job.
But say your games were played by millions of people, wouldn't you think it reasonable that you got some sort of remuneration? And big budget games and movies need to be funded from somewhere.
The days of making money on copies of music is over. Let it spread freely so more people will see you live. You're going to have to work for your income. The middleman industry? Technology has made you obsolete. Go die now.
The thing is, I have practically zero interest in seeing live music. So people like me will be free-riders if we don't have to pay for downloads.
If you're a young, passionate music fan who goes to gigs every night it's easy to forget that not everyone else is that bothered.
Art was not always seen as a money-making proposition. Before technology allowed mass production of creative works, you only sold what you made with your own hands (or with hired help).
In other words, the industry explicitly redefined artistic expression as 'property' so that they could make money off artists.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the publishers, recording studios and movie studios profiting off of others' work.
(captcha: slaver)
In the past if you were an artist you needed to either (a) be independently wealthy or (b) suck up to someone to be your patron.
Mass production allowed people like Dickens to earn a living from his writing as an independent artist, dependent only on how many people read his work.
Oh, please, pirating books was just a way for the publisher to make more money by not having to pay the author royalties. It has nothing to do with the morality (or otherwise) of downloading freely copiable digital material over the internet.
I really hope you're self employed. Else you're just a hypocrite.
Self employed people also work off the backs of others. They didn't build the roads or lay the water pipes or start the banking system or fund the armed forces that protect them.
Unless you're some sort of Robinson Crusoe figure living alone in a cave you are inextricably bound up with everything in human society.
Neither is the average file sharer making any money whatsoever on what they download.
They are certainly saving money if they're not paying for their downloads while others are. If I found a source of free beer I might not make any money on selling it, but I would certainly cut my living costs dramatically.
By your argument, no one should be allowed to make money from anything, since everything in culture and science is based on something else in some way. You'd have to have some form of communism to share everything out equally.
This is a legitimate point of view in some sort of utopian post-scarcity society like Star Trek, but it doesn't really apply to current reality.
What's rather more likely is that you want an excuse to download music for free.
You are confusing capitalism with the (theoretical) free market.
The purpose of capitalism is to acquire more capital. This would include creating monopolies, destroying the environment and using slave labour if it increased profit. It's why we need laws to keep a check on them.
Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.
Amen. It's a constant source of stress and frustration for me.
That's the problem when you leave school with no qualifications because you were so clever you got bored and disruptive and are now working cleaning public toilets.
Slashdot Mirror
Firearms have literally no uses that are non-destructive.
No no, you can use them to shoot out the lock of a building where a bunch of orphans are about to be burned alive.
Please, think of the children.
I learned decades ago to avoid science fiction written by females after reading some Andre Norton crap.
I learned decades ago to avoid science fiction written by males after reading some L Ron Hubbard crap. Oh no, I didn't because that would be fucking stupid wouldn't it?
They wrote a movie featuring strong women that was very popular with feminists.
You keep saying that like it's a bad thing.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a drug user]
That's just what a drug user would say.
Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be some sort lawyer just to live.
It's an inevitable result of the common law legal system as opposed to the more codified European systems. You can't just turn to page 6942 of the Bumper Book of Laws and find your answer written down for you.
You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
Non-criminal profits are orthogonal to the greater good. They may or may not coincide, but they are not identical.
When slavery was legal, it was still immoral.
But... you could also be highly ironic, in a post-modern kind of fashion. Hmmm... well played!
I think it was just old-fashioned sarcasm.
Some drone users... Like some car drivers... or anything you can think of
The difference is that an idiotic car driver is somewhat unlikely to cause a plane crash.
I'm trying hard to believe that is satire.
No, sounds more like mob rule.
Indeed, they stormed the prime ministerial residence and strung him up and his wife from a lamppost, after capturing and executing all the Icelandic armed forces and police.
Apart from the fact that they didn't.
Welfare, the great shackle of society. Want to keep people pitiless, penniless, and defeated, then put them on a government subsidized free hand out scheme where ambition is killed, apathy and cynicism are promoted.
Yeah, it's evil socialism taking away people's freedom to starve like in the good old days.
Anything that can go wrong will go worng?
Yes, that was indeed the joke. Well done.
I have a pet conspiracy theory that the political and business elite in the western world (okay, fine, the United States) engages in activities to keep its population intellectually sedate through its entertainment industry and overly calorie-ridden food (do you really need HFCS in your bread?).
When people get fat and lazy and distracted, they stop caring about things that require effort of thought and people in power can get away with whatever they want.
No one forces you to watch and eat crap all the time. It's a choice.
"Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. "
Contrary to popular belief, if a person can't make ends meet with their current job, they're actually free to rethink their career choices. They aren't OWED a paycheck just because they (claim to) love doing something.
I tend to work on making new games for old consoles. I know I can't put a roof over my head doing that no matter how much I enjoy it. That doesn't stop me from doing it in my spare time while I work a REAL job.
But say your games were played by millions of people, wouldn't you think it reasonable that you got some sort of remuneration? And big budget games and movies need to be funded from somewhere.
As far as I know, baseball is still free to watch on TV and the players still make bazillions so content protection is not the problem.
The TV companies have to pay for the right to show the games. Advertisers have to pay for the right to advertise during the game.
It's only "free" to the consumer because the money is made elsewhere.
The entertainers I support don't really give a damn about a few more million since they care about the fans.
Ah, the innocence of youth!
The days of making money on copies of music is over. Let it spread freely so more people will see you live. You're going to have to work for your income. The middleman industry? Technology has made you obsolete. Go die now.
The thing is, I have practically zero interest in seeing live music. So people like me will be free-riders if we don't have to pay for downloads.
If you're a young, passionate music fan who goes to gigs every night it's easy to forget that not everyone else is that bothered.
You miss the historical point.
Art was not always seen as a money-making proposition. Before technology allowed mass production of creative works, you only sold what you made with your own hands (or with hired help).
In other words, the industry explicitly redefined artistic expression as 'property' so that they could make money off artists.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the publishers, recording studios and movie studios profiting off of others' work.
(captcha: slaver)
In the past if you were an artist you needed to either (a) be independently wealthy or (b) suck up to someone to be your patron.
Mass production allowed people like Dickens to earn a living from his writing as an independent artist, dependent only on how many people read his work.
And why shouldn't they? You use someone else's property, you should pay them for it. End of story.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people profiting off of other's work.
The founding fathers apparently didn't see it that way.
http://www.victorianweb.org/au...
Oh, please, pirating books was just a way for the publisher to make more money by not having to pay the author royalties. It has nothing to do with the morality (or otherwise) of downloading freely copiable digital material over the internet.
I really hope you're self employed. Else you're just a hypocrite.
Self employed people also work off the backs of others. They didn't build the roads or lay the water pipes or start the banking system or fund the armed forces that protect them.
Unless you're some sort of Robinson Crusoe figure living alone in a cave you are inextricably bound up with everything in human society.
Neither is the average file sharer making any money whatsoever on what they download.
They are certainly saving money if they're not paying for their downloads while others are. If I found a source of free beer I might not make any money on selling it, but I would certainly cut my living costs dramatically.
This is a legitimate point of view in some sort of utopian post-scarcity society like Star Trek, but it doesn't really apply to current reality.
What's rather more likely is that you want an excuse to download music for free.
The purpose of capitalism is to acquire more capital. This would include creating monopolies, destroying the environment and using slave labour if it increased profit. It's why we need laws to keep a check on them.
I have an income of $60k and I save $20k a year.
That's the advantage of living in your mom's basement and having no social life, I suppose.
Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.
Amen. It's a constant source of stress and frustration for me.
That's the problem when you leave school with no qualifications because you were so clever you got bored and disruptive and are now working cleaning public toilets.