I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff.
And I don't get this incessant need to state an obvious LIE--99.9% of p2p users burn CD-Rs, anyone who has purchased CD-Rs or tapes has paid RIAA money--money which is ostensibly supposed to compensate them for any possible infringment we may commit.
Unfortunately, RIAA has decided that they want to have their cake and eat it too, and apparently they've managed to convince a number of people (such as yourself) that they are entitled to do this.
You want to end all piracy? Fine. Tell RIAA to stop STEALING our CD-R (and tape) money.
It's 100% sheer, unadulterated flamebait to say that we haven't paid for their music. Anyone who's ever bought a music CD-R (OR data CD-R, if you live in Canada) or blank tape has paid the RIAA money IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR ANY *POSSIBLE* COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
No matter how sympathetic you are for the poor starving artists (...most of which are either millionaires, or pro-P2P), you can't say that it's morally OK for RIAA to "tax" our blank media and give us absolutely nothing in return.
At the very least, the right to "try before you buy" is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.
This is a very, very compelling point, although it seems as though someone is going to have to spell it out for you guys.
The point is, some people find pornography offensive. I, for one, do not--at least, not the kind of porn I like to look at. I find absolutely nothing disturbing or offensive about the human form, even when (*especially* when) it is engaged in the act of procreation.
Some people find black people/black culture offensive. I, for one, do not.
Many people find Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma inspiring. I, for one, do not. At the very least, I find it annoying. Often, it is quite offensive and/or disturbing to me. (This is NOT an exaggeration--I was recently forced to listen to several hours of fire and brimstone lectures via Christian radio, and I can assure you that I felt no better than a nun would if she were trapped in a XXX video store.)
As distastful as this is to me, it is completely unfair to ask the religious world to segregate itself so that I don't have to listen to their offensive (to me) statements. It's not fair to them, and it's not smart for me, either--whether I like it or not, these people exist in the world, and if I have legitimate issues with their beliefs and actions, I should be endevoring to explain my beliefs to them, not plugging my ears and singing "lalalalalala" whenever they open their mouths.
Minority vs. majority should NOT play a part here. The majority shouldn't have the right to censor or segregate the minority anymore than the minority has the right to censor or segragate the majority.
Hell, let's get back to the analogy at hand: a few decades ago, the majority of people in the south would have found the image of a black man and a white woman kissing highly offensive. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches, too, were probably quite offensive to many people. Maybe the mass media should have segregated these controversial things, put them all in one newspaper that you had to go out of your way to find, a newspaper that no *respectable* white person would ever read. After all, people have the right not to be offended... right?
Wrong. This guy's analogy was spot on. You are responsible for your OWN level of offended-ness, and if you desire censorship, you should censor your own eyes (or your children's eyes) yourself. If you can't, then maybe you'd better wise up to the fact that there's shit in this world you don't like, and it's best to just suck it up and move on.
Yeah, it sucks, but if you want ANY sort of progress to happen in this country, you must accept the fact that sooner or later, eveyone is gonna get offended by something or another.
Hell, I find it offensive that some people find the human body and/or sex offensive. Does that mean we need a.prude, too?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. And I don't get this incessant need to state an obvious LIE--99.9% of p2p users burn CD-Rs, anyone who has purchased CD-Rs or tapes has paid RIAA money--money which is ostensibly supposed to compensate them for any possible infringment we may commit. Unfortunately, RIAA has decided that they want to have their cake and eat it too, and apparently they've managed to convince a number of people (such as yourself) that they are entitled to do this. You want to end all piracy? Fine. Tell RIAA to stop STEALING our CD-R (and tape) money.
It's 100% sheer, unadulterated flamebait to say that we haven't paid for their music. Anyone who's ever bought a music CD-R (OR data CD-R, if you live in Canada) or blank tape has paid the RIAA money IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR ANY *POSSIBLE* COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. No matter how sympathetic you are for the poor starving artists (...most of which are either millionaires, or pro-P2P), you can't say that it's morally OK for RIAA to "tax" our blank media and give us absolutely nothing in return. At the very least, the right to "try before you buy" is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.
This is a very, very compelling point, although it seems as though someone is going to have to spell it out for you guys.
.prude, too?
The point is, some people find pornography offensive. I, for one, do not--at least, not the kind of porn I like to look at. I find absolutely nothing disturbing or offensive about the human form, even when (*especially* when) it is engaged in the act of procreation.
Some people find black people/black culture offensive. I, for one, do not.
Many people find Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma inspiring. I, for one, do not. At the very least, I find it annoying. Often, it is quite offensive and/or disturbing to me. (This is NOT an exaggeration--I was recently forced to listen to several hours of fire and brimstone lectures via Christian radio, and I can assure you that I felt no better than a nun would if she were trapped in a XXX video store.)
As distastful as this is to me, it is completely unfair to ask the religious world to segregate itself so that I don't have to listen to their offensive (to me) statements. It's not fair to them, and it's not smart for me, either--whether I like it or not, these people exist in the world, and if I have legitimate issues with their beliefs and actions, I should be endevoring to explain my beliefs to them, not plugging my ears and singing "lalalalalala" whenever they open their mouths.
Minority vs. majority should NOT play a part here. The majority shouldn't have the right to censor or segregate the minority anymore than the minority has the right to censor or segragate the majority.
Hell, let's get back to the analogy at hand: a few decades ago, the majority of people in the south would have found the image of a black man and a white woman kissing highly offensive. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches, too, were probably quite offensive to many people. Maybe the mass media should have segregated these controversial things, put them all in one newspaper that you had to go out of your way to find, a newspaper that no *respectable* white person would ever read. After all, people have the right not to be offended... right?
Wrong. This guy's analogy was spot on. You are responsible for your OWN level of offended-ness, and if you desire censorship, you should censor your own eyes (or your children's eyes) yourself. If you can't, then maybe you'd better wise up to the fact that there's shit in this world you don't like, and it's best to just suck it up and move on.
Yeah, it sucks, but if you want ANY sort of progress to happen in this country, you must accept the fact that sooner or later, eveyone is gonna get offended by something or another.
Hell, I find it offensive that some people find the human body and/or sex offensive. Does that mean we need a