""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."
LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.
The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.
The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated different. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?
I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differentlmy from any other speech. You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.
You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.
"Because hate speech is something entirely different."
No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech. Unless you claim universalism on the matter, which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yest, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.
"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."
I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, then. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).
And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway:-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.
"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."
That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system.:-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtf
"My point was that in the case of racism there's really no room for argument, it is just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be the highest authority on, well, on anything really, but some things are just plain wrong."
That's a fundamentalist viewpoint. There is (or should be, anyways) ALWAYS room for argument, as long as it stays with arguments. Cleary you think it's wrong (as do I), but that's because we think and feel strongly it's wrong...but a racist may think and feel equally strong it's right and we are wrong; surely you can acknowledge that point?
Thus, we (anti-racist) both feel strong and think we are right and the other (racist) is wrong and vice versa...which makes it, without 'room for argumenting', nothing more then opinions. Unless you claim that forbidding free speech when it comes to 'racist speech' is universal, but then, if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't have a totally different view on the matter, would it?
(Besides, a claim of 'universalism' always makes me frown, in almost every conceivable case; I think that, in reality, there are very few human sociological concepts that are truelly universal)
"Well, first of all, I don't live in the USA, so this doesn't really apply, but assuming I did, and this scenario came to pass, I'd be gone faster than a skinhead who accidentally strolled into Harlem at 3 am. Once again, I can't help but argue that racism being wrong is fact, not opinion."
Neither do I, and in fact, ultra-right is far stronger in europe, with all it's anti-racism laws and muffling of free speech in this regard, then the USA; a thing that maybe should be considered, when arguing the perceived benefits of such laws.
That said, fleeing the country does not answer the question whether or not you would accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so, norif you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right. Seeing that fleeing is a bit drastic, I'm assuming you would not agree..yet, it would be the exact same reasoning as what you think should be entitled to shut up others in those instances...
"But the very act of expressing a racistic opinion is an act of racism in itself."
No, it isn't. If it were truelly the same, no1 could make a distinction, yet the courts in the USA have made that distinction quite consistently. And with reason: there should be an obvious-to-everyone distinction that it's not the same saying "I don't think niggers should be allowed to work" and firing or refusing black people, because of the color of their skin. He may say what he wants, as long as he doesn't act upon it. I can see that distinction, a whole lot of other people can see that distinction, the courts of the USA can see that distinction, and thus I'm rather inclined to think the two are not entirely the same.
Now, I'm fully agreeing with you that racism is wrong, and I'm applauding your viewpoint on the matter...only, I'm not deluding myself into thinking not allowing that form of free speech is somehow universal in nature and that my opinion is a fact where there is no room for argumentation. While I applaud your stance on racism, I would advice you to keep an eye on these kind of fundamentalistic traits.
"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."
I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.
"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."
That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.
But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.
Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden. I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.
So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?
Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant for those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.
The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself.
If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?
In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.
We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.
Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.
Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws. If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.
I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.
I know that you feel that way, and the problem with this is, as I've already pointed out, that you mix 'treating' with 'expression'. People that can't see the difference between acting (by doing) on a conviction and expressing (by speech) that conviction rarely see the point I'm making.
Whether one has the ability to not express one's thoughts do not matter and is, as an argument, completely irrelevant. A dissident in China can also keep his mouth shut, it doesn't mean he shouldn't open it, whether or not he offends the government or anyone else.
And duh, of course it a matter of opinion. Racists think people should be treated different based on the color of their skin, while I think that's bull. It should be clear a racist and I, thus, have different opinions on the matter.
I let him have his opinions, and the right to express them. As long as he doesn't act on them and actually discriminates, we are both expressing our opinions.
It always surpises me a bit how ppl can disregard a perfectly sensible and rational argument, just because they don't like it. Is it that difficult to see the validity of the point?
Imagine ultra-right-wing wins with 2/3 of the electorate and can change the constitution, and they decide they don't like the anti-racism opinion and equally forbid it. Well, then...what's your point going to be, in that case? Are you going to accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so? Will you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right?
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that ptohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones own views, or else you have no freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of it; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.
This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid speech they don't agree with and which may offend some group.
Solar sails do not use (or not primarely, exept maybe when close to the star, in the beginning) solar wind to propel itself. It uses the reflection of the sunlight; thus, photons, rather then ions.
It's also not correct that solarsails can't be used to reach other suns, because the sun there gives an oposite force. It's quite trivial, when using adaptive (rotating) solarsails, which have only one higly reflective side, to slow down or accelerate when nearing a solarsystem. And even withing a solarsystem; for an interesting project in that regard, see the planetary society where they plan to launch the first non-gov solarsail-powered probe.
Big corporations have the tendency of thinking they own everything that they lay there eyes on. It's the age-old 'power corrupts' thingy: a corporation is a multitude richer (thus, more, better lawyers) then a simple civilian - which basically means more power. And paople and entities alike, misuse the power they get, and the more they get it, the more they abuse them.
More then anything else, that's why people don't like the biggest players in the field, be it corporations or countries.
'Anti-americanism' as it's called has many of it's causes there too: while some of the americans may call it 'envy', it's a bit deeper then that. Anti-americanism (at least in europe) is not merely due to the fact that the USA is a 'big player' with lot's of influence on itself, it's more that they are very powerful, and are very badly misusing that power.
It's not limited to one particular country or company, but the fact remains that the more power one has, the more arrogant and abusive one becomes. This can be seen with companies such as MS, and countries/empires that have get immensily powerful (roman empire, british empire, current emperialistic USA...)
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it, but still they fight like a devil trying to safeguard their way of doing things, at all costs. This INDUCE lawproposal is just one example of how tenatious they want to keep their profits rolling, instead of searching for other ways themselves. It isn't the first, and it won't be the last. And they do not care how broad it is, believe me. Infact, the broader the better, because then they can sue evryone who is even just running a P2P prog they don't like.
The amount of bull they FUD is unbelievable. First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairshar e).
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die. But ofcourse, for the time being they are going the other way (as others have done in the past); trying to manipulate the law to their needs, so that, basically, their way of doing business gets entrenched in law and protected by law, even if everyone else would be made a criminal by it.
"They insist that we have nothing to fear about revealing our quirks, pathologies, and personal data, so long as absolutely everybody is doing it--including our commercial and federal overseers. Our own loss of privacy will be a small price to pay for what we'll get in return, these advocates say."
This is a ridiculous statement. If they feel so comfortable, why don't they place webcams in their bedroom and toilets? After all, everyone is doing it...
And a small price? Has it ever accured to those people that the abuse is gigantic, and that there is a good reason to regard privacy as a right? If they really think no1 has anything to fear if our personal data is for grabs, they are idiotic ninkenpoops. Just imagine what would happen, say, if a medical insurance-compagny would know you have some diseaese or gentic make-up that makes you sensitive and have a high risk for cancer or something? How do you think they will react? "We know you're a high-risk case, but that doesn't matter for us and we'll grant you the same as everyone else, because everyone is doing it?"
Apart from the obvious economic issues for an individual, there are also the sociological ones. Has it ever occured to them that people don't WANT that others know about something, whether they do it or not? Does a woman want it to be known that she had an abortion? Does a person automatically wants his sex-life (or lack thereof)to be known to all, even if he knows others are doing it? Do they honestly believe that I (and I'm guessing Im' not the only one) would want my personal feelings and emotions be known, because everyone is sharing them?
Well, I have seen Springer and Opera a few times, and it NEVER made me want to do the same, on the contrary.
No, it does not follow that, because 'all do it', you should be happy with 'life as an eternal peepshow'. And what's more, anyone with a grasp of human nature would realise that will never come. It's like saying 'if everyone were peacefull (or rational, or whatever), the world would be a better place'. Even if true, it's a nonsensical statement in any practical sense. Human nature involves good and evil, as well as the drive for meddling in someone elses' business and wanting to keep things private.
While they maybe right in the development of future privacy-invading technologies, they make the same error many 'futurologists' do; they extrapolate from the current conditions, and think they can predict what is going to happen. What folly.
If history teaches us anything, it's that it's comprised of forces and counter-forces: if at one time it swings to much in one direction, you can be sure there will be a counter-reaction. If privacy is being abused en masse, it will not lead to a broad acceptance of that abuse, but rather to a counter-reaction.
And I also do not think there is some sort of causal relationship between 'having unrestricted acces to the internet' and privacy abuse. You can have acces to data, yet remain anonymous, as is proven even today on the internet, let alone with systems as Freenet. As long as you are and remain anonymous (or at least pseudonymous), one can not deduce your rl where-abouts and make your private dealings public.
Well, besides being correct in my statements, it's always fun to rant against RIAA & consorts!;-)
Find legislative solutions instead...ermm...right. I'm not kidding myself in thinking I can just force new legislation, certainly not when there are big corporations set on going the way of making the laws more restrictive. In an ideal state maybe this would be possible, but in reality we all know that corporate lobbying, greed, corruption and the might of money often have a long arm in politics.
The only thing I can do is suggest things, and this is what I did (see fairshare). I could also imagine lifting a broader internet-related tax, much as is done (in my country, anyway) for empty carriers, to compensate artists for the loss of private copies. As a counterweight, digital media not bound on a phisical carrier should remain free for personal and non-commercial use.
Ofcourse, there is no way in hell that the RIAA & co could make the same profits of that, but it DOES show you (and some - alas small - political parties have already suggested the same) that it is possible to have other ways of dealing with the issue, instead of criminalising people for it.
So...are you joining the lobbying efort now?;-)
"If you want to find technological means to make outdated laws more unenforceable, go ahead.":-)
*cough*
Well, as a side-effect of the main goal of free speech, you may mean something like www.freenetproject.org, perhaps?
"After all, if the law was really as obsolete as you say, nobody should be getting caught breaking it, so there's no reason to rant."
I'm not getting that. If it was really obsolete, there is no reason to rant? Ermm...me thinks that IS just a reason to rant.
If it was obsolete, nobody should get caught? Ermm...how do you figger that? Women got caught a lot, before it wasn't illegal anymore to choose for an abortion. In fact, I know of few laws, even when totally obsolete, that didn't catch the 'perpetrators' before those laws finally were adapted or declared void - especially when vested interests of corporations were at stake.
And while they were being caught, most of those people ranted against those that obstructed the laws of being adapted.
"That's only PART of the problem. I really love the way you liberal anti-Bush folk love to over-simplify.
If we tried to park a satellite over a country we wanted to watch, it would last about as long as it took for that country to (1) realize it was there and (2) shoot the thing out of the sky. That would be a tremendous waste of time and resources, and it really doesn't solve anything."
*cough*
Good thing you said it about the over-simplifying! Otherwise, one would expect you to do a prime example of it, considering that even a superpower would have trouble just shooting a geo-stationary satellite out of space.
Dude... you must be joking. Iraq didn't and doesn't have the possibility to do that, not by a long shot (no pun intended). they weren't even able to send anything in low earth orbit before the war and the sanctions, let alone afterwards.
But, hey, keep out an eye for those people that over-simplify!!;-)
I'm afraid you missed my point entirely. Apart from the philosophical aspect, I was argumenting that what the RIAA says; that "sharing a file is the same as stealing a CD from a shop", is pure nonsense. If you read my post, you would have seen I also said it still might be regarded as copyright infringement, which is the so-called 'exclusiveness' you refer to.
Another question entirely, is whether copyright on digital online media should exist. In my view, copyrights on data without physical carriers is, indeed, absurd in this day and age. And what's more, history proves that whenever a considerable populace continues to 'infringe' on obsolete laws, there are only two reactions: draconian measures, primarely of the companies that stand to gain on the old methods (often accompagnied by the government/law that has been lobbied), or a gradual acceptance that it's a tide that can't be turned.
Trying to hold on to outdated models/views/laws are very seldom succesfull, and cause a lot of harm (enough examples in the past where companies tried to hold on to their powerbase and obstruct new technology). Even draconian laws don't change that fact.
Laws are not absolute, and while it's far from me to entice anyone to do something illegal, me thinks I still have the right to speak my opinion about these things (as yet), though no doubt the RIAA would like me and others to shut up with our viewpoint as well. The fact is, if enough people realise that copyrights in cyberspace are completely obsolete and shouldn't be used to try to criminalise people, then ipse facto what is illegal today could as well be legal tommorow. It's not carved in stone, you know.
And no, you don't necessarily have to wait before the law changes for not abiding and accepting a nonsensical law, IMHO. If women had done that, they still wouldn't have had the right to choose for an abortion or not. In fact, if people hadn't broken all those laws in the past, we still would have medieval laws untill this day. Why, the USA wouldn't exist today if people hadn't broken the law.
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairshar e).
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
we will call bogues reports which claim, insinuate, or are being portrayed as neutral scientific research, but in fact are FUD to the greater benefit of their corporate sponsors, 'Tocquevilles'.
Also as a verb, like: "He (Linus) got Tocquevilled'
I've noticed that you offered to revamp the FFII site. Does that offer still counts? Is there a way in which to contact you? (Is the email on www.nuatech.ciom yours, or do you prefer we use another emailaddy?)
I might not be such a perfect being like yourself, who is never tired and never made an error when writing or speaking, but I fail to see the relevance of your remark in respect to the actual content and arguments I gave.
Focusing on a minor detail instead of going into the real issues mentionned is, IMHO, making an ass of yourself.
It is, infact, very cheap. I could as well say 'Stop Making an..." is incorrect too, and sarcastically ask if you know how sentences are written and when to use capital letters, and if you are the right person to make comments on the mistakes that others have written, then.
But what would that prove? Other that such a person is a pedantic ninkenpoop?
You are correct in saying it was a wrong mixing of words, but you could do that without resorting to malvolent sarcasm or namecalling. And neither deals with the arguments I gave, nor do they make them unvalid.
So, now isntead of filling overcrowded prisons with drugaddicts, it's time to overcrowd them even more with people that have shared a song, even without any commercial gains.
It's almost exactly like I said in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108810&cid=924 6995 and the follow-ups. Draconian measures are taken, but still it won't help...but in the meantime, much harm is done and lives and families destroyed - all for keeping up the power, greed and profits for the big corporations.
If followed to the letter, by making a civil sueing into a criminal one, it will effectively turn the majority of online users in Italy to criminals.
All reason and measure of proportion has left, it seems. But then again, what can you expect of a right-winged fascist government that supported (and still actively supports) the war in Iraq, against the will of the people?
This *always* happens on slashdot when 'virii' is mentionned.
A whole bunch of "It's latin", "no, it's not", "it's slang", "no it's not" posts will pop-up like mushrooms.
While I agree that it's not correct latin, and I understand that some people have difficulties with the 'correctness' of it, it really doesn't matter one bit as to the validity of a word.
1)Language 'lives'; it changes with the passing of time.
2)Slang is not 'inferior' or 'wrong'; it are just words that are used in a subculture.
3)Words of a subculture can and have become 'mainstream'
4)In the past, english (as many other languages) has been 'corrupted' with equally 'wrong' words...yet we use them today as if they always have been correct, mostly not even being aware that once they were considered stupid, wrong, grammatically incorrect, foreign, nonsensical, inferior, ridiculous, the result of laziness, plain misspelled, etc.
Yet they are *all* considered mainstream english now! So, let's face it, there is *no* objective mechanism where you can say; this word has no place in our language or not.
If it's understood and used in this language, then ergo ipso, it *IS* part of that language.
Now, anyone understands what is meant by 'virii' and more and more people/posts use the term virii, with purpose, even beyond their 1337 roots.
So it really is silly to fulminate that virii is not a word; it is used as one, it is understood as one, and it even has left it's pure sub-culture 1337 roots behind so that now it's actually becoming slowly mainstream. So what, in a year or 5, it may end up in the dictionary, as so many 'non-existent' words before it...and what will be the the contra-argument then?
Why, in another 20 years most persons won't even know anymore that it was once considered as 'non-existent' or 'wrong'. They will use it, as we use all those other words where people fulminated against, just as with they will with new, totally wrong words that will pop-up. That's what it means when we say a language lives, after all.
Apart from the philosophical aspect, you missed my point entirely. I was argumenting that what the RIAA says; that sharing a file is the same as stealing a CD from a shop, is pure nonsense. If you read my post, you would have seen I also said it still might be regarded as copyright infringement.
Another question entirely, is whether copyright on digital online media should exist. In my view, copyrights on data without physical carriers is, indeed, absurd in this day and age. And what's more, history proves that whenever a considerable populace continues to 'infringe' on obsolete laws, there are only two reactions: draconian measures, primarely of the companies that stand to gain on the old methods (often accompagnied by the government/law that has been lobbied), or a gradual acceptance that it's a tide that can't be turned.
Trying to hold on to outdated models/views/laws are very seldom succesfull, and cause a lot of harm (enough examples in the past where companies tried to hold on to their powerbase and obstruct new technology). Even draconian laws don't change that fact.
Laws are not absolute, and while it's far from me to entice anyone to do something illegal, me thinks I still have the right to speak my opinion about these things (as yet), though no doubt the RIAA would like me and others to shut up with our viewpoint as well. The fact is, if enough people realise that copyrights in cyberspace are completely obsolete and shouldn't be used to try to criminalise people, then ipse facto what is illegal today could as well be legal tommorow. It's not carved in stone, you know.
And no, you don't necessarily have to wait before the law changes for not abiding and accepting a nonsensical law, IMHO. If women had done that, they still wouldn't have had the right to choose for an abortion or not. In fact, if people hadn't broken all those laws in the past, we still would have medieval laws untill this day. Why, the USA wouldn't exist today if people hadn't broken the law.
Actually neofunk answered perfectly in his reply to wmarcy.
Wmarcy was mostly playing with words, because the good that would be stolen, even while being a copy, would be taken away, thus, the store would be deprived of it.
However, if you made a copy of that good (even if it was itself a copy), the store loses nothing and can't sue you for theft, though it may still be copyright-infringement.
It is surprising how few people actually see the difference between those two things. Maybe they just swallowed all that 'it's the same as stealing a CD in a shop'-crap of the RIAA.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
"They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on."
Well, obviously you will have some dissenting voices, but as a whole, I can assure you that europeans perhaps may find Moore fat, vulgar, greedy and ambitious, but not stupid and ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."
;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.
:-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.
:-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtf
LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that
The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.
The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated different. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?
I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differentlmy from any other speech. You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.
You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.
"Because hate speech is something entirely different."
No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech. Unless you claim universalism on the matter, which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yest, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.
"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."
I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, then. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).
And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway
"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."
That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system.
"My point was that in the case of racism there's really no room for argument, it is just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be the highest authority on, well, on anything really, but some things are just plain wrong."
That's a fundamentalist viewpoint. There is (or should be, anyways) ALWAYS room for argument, as long as it stays with arguments. Cleary you think it's wrong (as do I), but that's because we think and feel strongly it's wrong...but a racist may think and feel equally strong it's right and we are wrong; surely you can acknowledge that point?
Thus, we (anti-racist) both feel strong and think we are right and the other (racist) is wrong and vice versa...which makes it, without 'room for argumenting', nothing more then opinions. Unless you claim that forbidding free speech when it comes to 'racist speech' is universal, but then, if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't have a totally different view on the matter, would it?
(Besides, a claim of 'universalism' always makes me frown, in almost every conceivable case; I think that, in reality, there are very few human sociological concepts that are truelly universal)
"Well, first of all, I don't live in the USA, so this doesn't really apply, but assuming I did, and this scenario came to pass, I'd be gone faster than a skinhead who accidentally strolled into Harlem at 3 am. Once again, I can't help but argue that racism being wrong is fact, not opinion."
Neither do I, and in fact, ultra-right is far stronger in europe, with all it's anti-racism laws and muffling of free speech in this regard, then the USA; a thing that maybe should be considered, when arguing the perceived benefits of such laws.
That said, fleeing the country does not answer the question whether or not you would accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so, norif you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right. Seeing that fleeing is a bit drastic, I'm assuming you would not agree..yet, it would be the exact same reasoning as what you think should be entitled to shut up others in those instances...
"But the very act of expressing a racistic opinion is an act of racism in itself."
No, it isn't. If it were truelly the same, no1 could make a distinction, yet the courts in the USA have made that distinction quite consistently. And with reason: there should be an obvious-to-everyone distinction that it's not the same saying "I don't think niggers should be allowed to work" and firing or refusing black people, because of the color of their skin. He may say what he wants, as long as he doesn't act upon it. I can see that distinction, a whole lot of other people can see that distinction, the courts of the USA can see that distinction, and thus I'm rather inclined to think the two are not entirely the same.
Now, I'm fully agreeing with you that racism is wrong, and I'm applauding your viewpoint on the matter...only, I'm not deluding myself into thinking not allowing that form of free speech is somehow universal in nature and that my opinion is a fact where there is no room for argumentation. While I applaud your stance on racism, I would advice you to keep an eye on these kind of fundamentalistic traits.
"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."
;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.
I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.
"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."
That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself
But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.
Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden. I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.
So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?
Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant for those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.
The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself.
If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?
In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.
We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.
Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.
Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws. If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.
I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.
I know that you feel that way, and the problem with this is, as I've already pointed out, that you mix 'treating' with 'expression'. People that can't see the difference between acting (by doing) on a conviction and expressing (by speech) that conviction rarely see the point I'm making.
Whether one has the ability to not express one's thoughts do not matter and is, as an argument, completely irrelevant. A dissident in China can also keep his mouth shut, it doesn't mean he shouldn't open it, whether or not he offends the government or anyone else.
And duh, of course it a matter of opinion. Racists think people should be treated different based on the color of their skin, while I think that's bull. It should be clear a racist and I, thus, have different opinions on the matter.
I let him have his opinions, and the right to express them. As long as he doesn't act on them and actually discriminates, we are both expressing our opinions.
It always surpises me a bit how ppl can disregard a perfectly sensible and rational argument, just because they don't like it. Is it that difficult to see the validity of the point?
Imagine ultra-right-wing wins with 2/3 of the electorate and can change the constitution, and they decide they don't like the anti-racism opinion and equally forbid it. Well, then...what's your point going to be, in that case? Are you going to accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so? Will you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right?
Me doubts so.
It isn't.
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that ptohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones own views, or else you have no freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of it; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.
This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid speech they don't agree with and which may offend some group.
It's also not correct that solarsails can't be used to reach other suns, because the sun there gives an oposite force. It's quite trivial, when using adaptive (rotating) solarsails, which have only one higly reflective side, to slow down or accelerate when nearing a solarsystem. And even withing a solarsystem; for an interesting project in that regard, see the planetary society where they plan to launch the first non-gov solarsail-powered probe.
Big corporations have the tendency of thinking they own everything that they lay there eyes on. It's the age-old 'power corrupts' thingy: a corporation is a multitude richer (thus, more, better lawyers) then a simple civilian - which basically means more power.
And paople and entities alike, misuse the power they get, and the more they get it, the more they abuse them.
More then anything else, that's why people don't like the biggest players in the field, be it corporations or countries.
'Anti-americanism' as it's called has many of it's causes there too: while some of the americans may call it 'envy', it's a bit deeper then that. Anti-americanism (at least in europe) is not merely due to the fact that the USA is a 'big player' with lot's of influence on itself, it's more that they are very powerful, and are very badly misusing that power.
It's not limited to one particular country or company, but the fact remains that the more power one has, the more arrogant and abusive one becomes. This can be seen with companies such as MS, and countries/empires that have get immensily powerful (roman empire, british empire, current emperialistic USA...)
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it, but still they fight like a devil trying to safeguard their way of doing things, at all costs. This INDUCE lawproposal is just one example of how tenatious they want to keep their profits rolling, instead of searching for other ways themselves. It isn't the first, and it won't be the last. And they do not care how broad it is, believe me. Infact, the broader the better, because then they can sue evryone who is even just running a P2P prog they don't like.
r e).
The amount of bull they FUD is unbelievable. First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairsha
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die. But ofcourse, for the time being they are going the other way (as others have done in the past); trying to manipulate the law to their needs, so that, basically, their way of doing business gets entrenched in law and protected by law, even if everyone else would be made a criminal by it.
"They insist that we have nothing to fear about revealing our quirks, pathologies, and personal data, so long as absolutely everybody is doing it--including our commercial and federal overseers. Our own loss of privacy will be a small price to pay for what we'll get in return, these advocates say."
This is a ridiculous statement. If they feel so comfortable, why don't they place webcams in their bedroom and toilets? After all, everyone is doing it...
And a small price? Has it ever accured to those people that the abuse is gigantic, and that there is a good reason to regard privacy as a right? If they really think no1 has anything to fear if our personal data is for grabs, they are idiotic ninkenpoops. Just imagine what would happen, say, if a medical insurance-compagny would know you have some diseaese or gentic make-up that makes you sensitive and have a high risk for cancer or something? How do you think they will react? "We know you're a high-risk case, but that doesn't matter for us and we'll grant you the same as everyone else, because everyone is doing it?"
Apart from the obvious economic issues for an individual, there are also the sociological ones. Has it ever occured to them that people don't WANT that others know about something, whether they do it or not? Does a woman want it to be known that she had an abortion? Does a person automatically wants his sex-life (or lack thereof)to be known to all, even if he knows others are doing it? Do they honestly believe that I (and I'm guessing Im' not the only one) would want my personal feelings and emotions be known, because everyone is sharing them?
Well, I have seen Springer and Opera a few times, and it NEVER made me want to do the same, on the contrary.
No, it does not follow that, because 'all do it', you should be happy with 'life as an eternal peepshow'. And what's more, anyone with a grasp of human nature would realise that will never come. It's like saying 'if everyone were peacefull (or rational, or whatever), the world would be a better place'. Even if true, it's a nonsensical statement in any practical sense. Human nature involves good and evil, as well as the drive for meddling in someone elses' business and wanting to keep things private.
While they maybe right in the development of future privacy-invading technologies, they make the same error many 'futurologists' do; they extrapolate from the current conditions, and think they can predict what is going to happen. What folly.
If history teaches us anything, it's that it's comprised of forces and counter-forces: if at one time it swings to much in one direction, you can be sure there will be a counter-reaction. If privacy is being abused en masse, it will not lead to a broad acceptance of that abuse, but rather to a counter-reaction.
And I also do not think there is some sort of causal relationship between 'having unrestricted acces to the internet' and privacy abuse. You can have acces to data, yet remain anonymous, as is proven even today on the internet, let alone with systems as Freenet. As long as you are and remain anonymous (or at least pseudonymous), one can not deduce your rl where-abouts and make your private dealings public.
Well, besides being correct in my statements, it's always fun to rant against RIAA & consorts! ;-)
;-)
:-)
Find legislative solutions instead...ermm...right. I'm not kidding myself in thinking I can just force new legislation, certainly not when there are big corporations set on going the way of making the laws more restrictive. In an ideal state maybe this would be possible, but in reality we all know that corporate lobbying, greed, corruption and the might of money often have a long arm in politics.
The only thing I can do is suggest things, and this is what I did (see fairshare). I could also imagine lifting a broader internet-related tax, much as is done (in my country, anyway) for empty carriers, to compensate artists for the loss of private copies. As a counterweight, digital media not bound on a phisical carrier should remain free for personal and non-commercial use.
Ofcourse, there is no way in hell that the RIAA & co could make the same profits of that, but it DOES show you (and some - alas small - political parties have already suggested the same) that it is possible to have other ways of dealing with the issue, instead of criminalising people for it.
So...are you joining the lobbying efort now?
"If you want to find technological means to make outdated laws more unenforceable, go ahead."
*cough*
Well, as a side-effect of the main goal of free speech, you may mean something like www.freenetproject.org, perhaps?
"After all, if the law was really as obsolete as you say, nobody should be getting caught breaking it, so there's no reason to rant."
I'm not getting that. If it was really obsolete, there is no reason to rant? Ermm...me thinks that IS just a reason to rant.
If it was obsolete, nobody should get caught? Ermm...how do you figger that? Women got caught a lot, before it wasn't illegal anymore to choose for an abortion. In fact, I know of few laws, even when totally obsolete, that didn't catch the 'perpetrators' before those laws finally were adapted or declared void - especially when vested interests of corporations were at stake.
And while they were being caught, most of those people ranted against those that obstructed the laws of being adapted.
So, I'm really puzzled by your last sentence.
"That's only PART of the problem. I really love the way you liberal anti-Bush folk love to over-simplify.
;-)
If we tried to park a satellite over a country we wanted to watch, it would last about as long as it took for that country to (1) realize it was there and (2) shoot the thing out of the sky. That would be a tremendous waste of time and resources, and it really doesn't solve anything."
*cough*
Good thing you said it about the over-simplifying!
Otherwise, one would expect you to do a prime example of it, considering that even a superpower would have trouble just shooting a geo-stationary satellite out of space.
Dude... you must be joking. Iraq didn't and doesn't have the possibility to do that, not by a long shot (no pun intended). they weren't even able to send anything in low earth orbit before the war and the sanctions, let alone afterwards.
But, hey, keep out an eye for those people that over-simplify!!
I'm afraid you missed my point entirely. Apart from the philosophical aspect, I was argumenting that what the RIAA says; that "sharing a file is the same as stealing a CD from a shop", is pure nonsense. If you read my post, you would have seen I also said it still might be regarded as copyright infringement, which is the so-called 'exclusiveness' you refer to.
Another question entirely, is whether copyright on digital online media should exist. In my view, copyrights on data without physical carriers is, indeed, absurd in this day and age. And what's more, history proves that whenever a considerable populace continues to 'infringe' on obsolete laws, there are only two reactions: draconian measures, primarely of the companies that stand to gain on the old methods (often accompagnied by the government/law that has been lobbied), or a gradual acceptance that it's a tide that can't be turned.
Trying to hold on to outdated models/views/laws are very seldom succesfull, and cause a lot of harm (enough examples in the past where companies tried to hold on to their powerbase and obstruct new technology). Even draconian laws don't change that fact.
Laws are not absolute, and while it's far from me to entice anyone to do something illegal, me thinks I still have the right to speak my opinion about these things (as yet), though no doubt the RIAA would like me and others to shut up with our viewpoint as well. The fact is, if enough people realise that copyrights in cyberspace are completely obsolete and shouldn't be used to try to criminalise people, then ipse facto what is illegal today could as well be legal tommorow. It's not carved in stone, you know.
And no, you don't necessarily have to wait before the law changes for not abiding and accepting a nonsensical law, IMHO. If women had done that, they still wouldn't have had the right to choose for an abortion or not. In fact, if people hadn't broken all those laws in the past, we still would have medieval laws untill this day. Why, the USA wouldn't exist today if people hadn't broken the law.
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
r e).
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairsha
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
And it's the same question:
Why would Athens be considered the 'home of the Roman Empire' when it never was, not even within the East-Roman empire?
we will call bogues reports which claim, insinuate, or are being portrayed as neutral scientific research, but in fact are FUD to the greater benefit of their corporate sponsors, 'Tocquevilles'.
Also as a verb, like: "He (Linus) got Tocquevilled'
ah, yes... it comes down to this:
"Being accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world is directly proportional to the intelligence one has." - Ken Brown
hey there,
I've noticed that you offered to revamp the FFII site. Does that offer still counts? Is there a way in which to contact you? (Is the email on www.nuatech.ciom yours, or do you prefer we use another emailaddy?)
Temper - temper!
I might not be such a perfect being like yourself, who is never tired and never made an error when writing or speaking, but I fail to see the relevance of your remark in respect to the actual content and arguments I gave.
Focusing on a minor detail instead of going into the real issues mentionned is, IMHO, making an ass of yourself.
It is, infact, very cheap. I could as well say 'Stop Making an..." is incorrect too, and sarcastically ask if you know how sentences are written and when to use capital letters, and if you are the right person to make comments on the mistakes that others have written, then.
But what would that prove? Other that such a person is a pedantic ninkenpoop?
You are correct in saying it was a wrong mixing of words, but you could do that without resorting to malvolent sarcasm or namecalling. And neither deals with the arguments I gave, nor do they make them unvalid.
So, now isntead of filling overcrowded prisons with drugaddicts, it's time to overcrowd them even more with people that have shared a song, even without any commercial gains.
4 6995 and the follow-ups. Draconian measures are taken, but still it won't help...but in the meantime, much harm is done and lives and families destroyed - all for keeping up the power, greed and profits for the big corporations.
It's almost exactly like I said in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108810&cid=92
If followed to the letter, by making a civil sueing into a criminal one, it will effectively turn the majority of online users in Italy to criminals.
All reason and measure of proportion has left, it seems. But then again, what can you expect of a right-winged fascist government that supported (and still actively supports) the war in Iraq, against the will of the people?
This *always* happens on slashdot when 'virii' is mentionned.
A whole bunch of "It's latin", "no, it's not", "it's slang", "no it's not" posts will pop-up like mushrooms.
While I agree that it's not correct latin, and I understand that some people have difficulties with the 'correctness' of it, it really doesn't matter one bit as to the validity of a word.
1)Language 'lives'; it changes with the passing of time.
2)Slang is not 'inferior' or 'wrong'; it are just words that are used in a subculture.
3)Words of a subculture can and have become 'mainstream'
4)In the past, english (as many other languages) has been 'corrupted' with equally 'wrong' words...yet we use them today as if they always have been correct, mostly not even being aware that once they were considered stupid, wrong, grammatically incorrect, foreign, nonsensical, inferior, ridiculous, the result of laziness, plain misspelled, etc.
Yet they are *all* considered mainstream english now! So, let's face it, there is *no* objective mechanism where you can say; this word has no place in our language or not.
If it's understood and used in this language, then ergo ipso, it *IS* part of that language.
Now, anyone understands what is meant by 'virii' and more and more people/posts use the term virii, with purpose, even beyond their 1337 roots.
So it really is silly to fulminate that virii is not a word; it is used as one, it is understood as one, and it even has left it's pure sub-culture 1337 roots behind so that now it's actually becoming slowly mainstream. So what, in a year or 5, it may end up in the dictionary, as so many 'non-existent' words before it...and what will be the the contra-argument then?
Why, in another 20 years most persons won't even know anymore that it was once considered as 'non-existent' or 'wrong'. They will use it, as we use all those other words where people fulminated against, just as with they will with new, totally wrong words that will pop-up. That's what it means when we say a language lives, after all.
We are *ALL* indivi...ermm...special! ;-)
Apart from the philosophical aspect, you missed my point entirely. I was argumenting that what the RIAA says; that sharing a file is the same as stealing a CD from a shop, is pure nonsense. If you read my post, you would have seen I also said it still might be regarded as copyright infringement.
Another question entirely, is whether copyright on digital online media should exist. In my view, copyrights on data without physical carriers is, indeed, absurd in this day and age. And what's more, history proves that whenever a considerable populace continues to 'infringe' on obsolete laws, there are only two reactions: draconian measures, primarely of the companies that stand to gain on the old methods (often accompagnied by the government/law that has been lobbied), or a gradual acceptance that it's a tide that can't be turned.
Trying to hold on to outdated models/views/laws are very seldom succesfull, and cause a lot of harm (enough examples in the past where companies tried to hold on to their powerbase and obstruct new technology). Even draconian laws don't change that fact.
Laws are not absolute, and while it's far from me to entice anyone to do something illegal, me thinks I still have the right to speak my opinion about these things (as yet), though no doubt the RIAA would like me and others to shut up with our viewpoint as well. The fact is, if enough people realise that copyrights in cyberspace are completely obsolete and shouldn't be used to try to criminalise people, then ipse facto what is illegal today could as well be legal tommorow. It's not carved in stone, you know.
And no, you don't necessarily have to wait before the law changes for not abiding and accepting a nonsensical law, IMHO. If women had done that, they still wouldn't have had the right to choose for an abortion or not. In fact, if people hadn't broken all those laws in the past, we still would have medieval laws untill this day. Why, the USA wouldn't exist today if people hadn't broken the law.
Actually neofunk answered perfectly in his reply to wmarcy.
Wmarcy was mostly playing with words, because the good that would be stolen, even while being a copy, would be taken away, thus, the store would be deprived of it.
However, if you made a copy of that good (even if it was itself a copy), the store loses nothing and can't sue you for theft, though it may still be copyright-infringement.
It is surprising how few people actually see the difference between those two things. Maybe they just swallowed all that 'it's the same as stealing a CD in a shop'-crap of the RIAA.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
"They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on."
Well, obviously you will have some dissenting voices, but as a whole, I can assure you that europeans perhaps may find Moore fat, vulgar, greedy and ambitious, but not stupid and ignorant.
Thus, he scores better then the average American.