Uh...I do. The vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and are just trying to break even.
Which is why you have given up on paying for broadband (you're typing this at the library, right?), don't have a cell phone, don't drink alchohol or eat out, only have one pair of shoes, no TV, no camera, don't by games or music or go to movies, and work a second job evenings and weekends so that you can save up some money, right?
Every post he makes attempts to whitewash the US government's murder of civilians
I have no idea who that poster is, but will still mod him up. You are the one BSing, here. You're mis-using the word murder, and are either knowingly lying about a vast conspiracy, or you're just a wingnut. Possibly both, of course.
The fact is, individual rights are enumerated by both countries' central law systems
No. The US constitution doesn't enumerate rights. It helpds to define what's federal turf which is what is left to the states, and specifies important areas in which the government is expressly prevented from infringing. It doesn't say what a citizen's rights are. It makes a big deal about areas that are off-limits from government interference. Those are not the same things, at all. The US system presumes that rights exist as natural feature of our human existance. And to play it safe, it expressly mentions some areas that are beyond the government's reach, no matter what laws are passed.
I fly on my companies private planes all of the time, including international flights and my bags have never been scanned.
And, when you fly on your company's private planes, do you pass through the same airport security as the passengers headed to commercial passenger gates? Because that what Steve Jobs did, because that's how that particular airport is set up. There is no distinction between private and non-private passengers. If your company's aircraft were waiting for you at that same small Japanese airport, your bags would have been scanned, just like all passengers who pass through the same security point. If everyone passed through the same point, but they only scanned bags for people getting on commercial passenger planes, there would be a huge vulnerability - because the people who weren't scanned could just hand the drugs/weapons/cash/etc over to the scanned people as soon as they get through security. You do understand this, right?
Why would they be worried about securing the net when they won't secure our boarders...
Well, a lot of us don't have boarders, even if most of us have internet access. Some of us who do have boarders will allow them to use our internet access, but I don't know if that matters. I don't want to have to watch them use it, just to secure them, and I don't want the Feds to get involved in the relationship between me and any boarders that stay in my house. But we do have to watch 'em, especially the boarders from over the border. Those Canadian boarders are nothing but trouble, and never pay their rent on time. In fact, I'm completey tired of renting out rooms. That last guy, from Quebec, wouldn't stop using French names for food. I'm done with him. I'm over the boarder, for sure. The broader issue of boarders, especially Swedish broads, bordering on being boarders but bartering room and board in exchange for making smorgasbords, is bordering on being a bore.
many of them will not be happy with anything other than the right to share whatever files they want
Or more precisely, many will not be happy with anything other than the consequence-less ability to rip off entertainment whether or not the people who invest money in creating that entertainment want to give it away for free just that moment.
So, your point is that law enforcement should never have the option to physically stop someone in the middle of a crime? Should not be able to physically restrain someone who is violent? Not be able to prevent a murderer from running away because that would require physically touching them? Is that your position? Say yes or no.
The power of the police comes from the threat of force
You say that like it's a bad thing. How should police deal with people who refuse to stop doing something illegal? Hold their breath until they turn blue? Use extremely stern language, and perhaps threaten to tell their parents? The option to ultimately make use of force (as in, physically stopping someone from doing something dangerous, or physically taking someone to jail if they won't stop stealing from people, etc), if necessary, isn't really an option at all. Otherwise all of us law abiding people and the police we hire would be entirely at the mercy of criminals who are willing to use force, and would gladly do so if there never any consequences.
No, but you can set your watch by the fact that that silly argumnet will be used. Yep, just down stream, that's exactly what someone lamely tried to do. Never fails.
The flaw is that the musicians aren't the ones making the money!
Ah, yes. There always has to be someone deparate enough to continue to rip off the entertainment they want that they'll make this specious and morally bankrupt argument. I'll even translate it for you: "Artists want to be published, and some of them choose to work with a record label that will front the costs, handle the legal stuff, and take all of the financial risks (which are significant, since most artists are failures at attracting or holding a large audience). And early in their careers, much of the revenue goes to the person who took the financial risk, and spent the up-front money while the artist demonstrates whether or not they have the staying-power to grow, attract a wider audience, and have to clout to negotiate a contract that makes them more money. I hate this because it reminds me of the uncomfortable reality that most poeple aren't talented, and it also reminds me that most artists are terrible business people, and if they didn't go with a professionally managed lable, they would do even worse on their own, and probably lose everything."
That about size it up? Are you forgetting how many labels are started, every year, by the artists themselves? Specifically so they can sign new talent under conditions they think will be attractive to new talent? Have you completely missed the part where an artist with anything like a chance of developing a large following can pick and choose between labels who are competing to offer them more attractive terms? Are you pretending not to notice the number of artists who now self-publish, using any of a zillion of new methods for selling their works?
getting your facts straight before making a fool of yourself in public
Maybe you should try that, before attempting to score rhetorical points using a hollow, junior high school level defense for ripping off music, straight out of 1997 or so. Unless of course you are in junior high school, still, which seems more likely.
So, if we could figure out a way to prove that terrorism, hunger, poverty, AIDS, or whatever injustice hurts the corporate bottom line, we'd see action being taken to clear it up in no time?
You mean, like perhaps the billions of dollars every year that the private sector pours into NGOs that try to educate people in terrorism-spawning hotbeds, into HIV treatment and vaccination programs, etc? Like that?
Certainly there is nothing worse than file sharing going on if this is their priority.
And as we all know, it's impossible for law enforcement agencies to do more than one thing at a time. That's why they stop arresting drunk drivers whenever they hear about a case of domestic violence, or have to give up investigations of child trafficking or currency countfeiting whenever there's been a bank robbery across town.
Now that governments across the globe are mobilizing armed men to eliminate file sharers, the world will be a perfect place
How is that bit of childish sophistry any different than saying, "Now that businesses and loose affiliations of people all across the globe have formed organizations and web sites built specifically to enable ripping things off, the world will be a perfect place"... huh? What's the part that gets you so upset... that a country's laws are being enforced? If so, then your problem is with the laws enacted by the legislators in those countries, not with the fact that law enforcement officers doing a difficult job happen to be armed as part of their office. If your problem is that the officers are armed, and not with the fact that they're enforcing the law, then make a better case for the fact that officers executing warrants never walk into situations where someone crazy might try to hurt them.
Or are you mostly just pissed because it seems fewer people than you'd like agree with you about the positive aspects of institutions built around, and publicly celebrating the ripping off of creative people? I suppose this is where you say that authors, musicians, performers, film makers, photographers, actors and all the rest have no choice but to work for The Man, and thus you're doing them a favor by ripping them off, right? That the world is a better place when some 12 year old gets to make an entertainment slave out of their favorite musician?
Or should we stick wiht your original logic, and wonder why anyone should be allowed to enjoy music (ripped off or otherwise) when there's a single unhappy person in the world, or a single mosquito biting a quadraplegic somewhere? After all, we can only focus on one thing at a time, right?
Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court
Which makes sense, since there hasn't been a trial yet. The charges have been re-instated by the prosecutor, so who knows, perhaps we will have a chance to see what a jury thinks about the evidence.
Of course I do. The morality of ripping off the movie has absolutely nothing to do with how good it is, or how well it does in normal sales. Are you saying that shoplifting a donut from a 7-11 is OK, as long as you say that it's stale?
The only difference between most downloads of movies and waiting around to happen to catch it on HBO or something is the timing.
Except that most people do not subscribe to HBO. Only a minority of cable subscribers pay for premium services. Are you suggesting that all of the people who pirate movies also pay for subscription access to HBO, SHO, etc? You know that's BS. Quit embarassing yourself.
You just can't stand to see someone get something for nothing when the other side of the equation means "no sale" at all.
I have no problem with people getting stuff for free. As long as they're getting it according to the wishes of the person who creates it. Plenty of artists and the publishers they work with go to all sorts of trouble to provide entertainment at no cost to their audiences. You're suggesting that everyone should be able to dictate to the artists and their partners when and how that should happen. What you want is pet entertainment slaves who will do your bidding. You're staking out an elastic moral ground where your whim rules, but nobody else gets to have the same power, especially the people who create the stuff you want and demand for free. Fantastic hypocrisy there. Typical. Only the leaches can dictate morality, right? I'll be I know how you vote, too.
If you're not concerned about the environment & pollution here's an experiment you can try. Go into your garage, make sure all doors are closed, turn your car on... wait...
Those are some awesome rhetorical skills, there. Wow. Here's a variation: find a spot where far-reaching, comprehensive environmental regulation and changes in people's general attitudes have resulted in changing a toxic, ugly body of water into a clean, thriving, healthy body of water. Excellent. Now, hold your head under that water for several minutes... wait...
Oh, I see. Your experiment proposal is just a bit of snarky BS that doesn't actually point out any causal relationships, meaningfully comment on actual idealogical or real-life policy complexities, or do anything other than show you to be a shrill, foot-stamping sound-biter. A Prius idleing in your garage is going to kill you too, right? Better lump all the Prius owners in with the environment haters, right?
$2900 sounds reasonable to you? Last I checked, that was over 100 times the cost of a DVD.
Ah. So, the penalty for ripping things off should only ever be what you would have paid anyway? All that would be is incentive to rip off everything you consume, and figure that you'll just pay for stuff when you happen to get caught.
The whole point is that most people pay for their goods and for their entertainment. Some people think they are entitled to free stuff just because they know a way to rip it off. A fine that costs more than what an honest person actually pays for goods and services is entirely appropriate, because it's meant as a punishment for being a leech, a thief, etc.
Of course, you know all of that, and you're just being a troll.
If you are in the states you can just say something like "glenn beck is such a leader" and whoever agrees with you... tada
Also, "Al Gore inspired me to carry a gun and some poorly made bombs into the Discovery Channel headquarters where I took hostages in the name of stopping the births of more parasitic human babies. He's my leader." That's always a good test, too. Just listen for the people who say, "Well, you know, he really does have a solid, valid view of things. His protest theatre was just a bit over the top. Everyone knows that giant puppets and drum banging is much more effective. Well, that and smashing a Starbucks window, obviously."
It's easy. They (the illegals) make the decision to piss all over their legal counterparts who actually waited their turn to immigrate in accordance with the law, did the paperwork, and followed the rules. I'm not really sure what rhetorical strategy you're following, asking that question.
If we don't have any more disgusting babies, how will we get people to work the boats on Deadliest Catch, or drive the rigs on Ice Road Truckers?
Why didn't he just jump off the building, and then make an immediate appearance on Ghost Lab? He would have had all the air time in the world to rant about "parasitic human infants" if he could make the first ever actually non-BS appearance on an idiotic cable ghost hunting show.
Anyway, let's hear it for the Montgomery County PD for taking care of this clown. Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh...I do. The vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and are just trying to break even.
Which is why you have given up on paying for broadband (you're typing this at the library, right?), don't have a cell phone, don't drink alchohol or eat out, only have one pair of shoes, no TV, no camera, don't by games or music or go to movies, and work a second job evenings and weekends so that you can save up some money, right?
Every post he makes attempts to whitewash the US government's murder of civilians
I have no idea who that poster is, but will still mod him up. You are the one BSing, here. You're mis-using the word murder, and are either knowingly lying about a vast conspiracy, or you're just a wingnut. Possibly both, of course.
The fact is, individual rights are enumerated by both countries' central law systems
No. The US constitution doesn't enumerate rights. It helpds to define what's federal turf which is what is left to the states, and specifies important areas in which the government is expressly prevented from infringing. It doesn't say what a citizen's rights are. It makes a big deal about areas that are off-limits from government interference. Those are not the same things, at all. The US system presumes that rights exist as natural feature of our human existance. And to play it safe, it expressly mentions some areas that are beyond the government's reach, no matter what laws are passed.
I fly on my companies private planes all of the time, including international flights and my bags have never been scanned.
And, when you fly on your company's private planes, do you pass through the same airport security as the passengers headed to commercial passenger gates? Because that what Steve Jobs did, because that's how that particular airport is set up. There is no distinction between private and non-private passengers. If your company's aircraft were waiting for you at that same small Japanese airport, your bags would have been scanned, just like all passengers who pass through the same security point. If everyone passed through the same point, but they only scanned bags for people getting on commercial passenger planes, there would be a huge vulnerability - because the people who weren't scanned could just hand the drugs/weapons/cash/etc over to the scanned people as soon as they get through security. You do understand this, right?
Please do not disturb him with annoying distractions such as observations of actual ice.
My personal take is that LEOs have no more and no less right to use physical force to defend themselves or others, than any other citizen does.
Which body of law, in which country, are you referring to?
Why would they be worried about securing the net when they won't secure our boarders...
Well, a lot of us don't have boarders, even if most of us have internet access. Some of us who do have boarders will allow them to use our internet access, but I don't know if that matters. I don't want to have to watch them use it, just to secure them, and I don't want the Feds to get involved in the relationship between me and any boarders that stay in my house. But we do have to watch 'em, especially the boarders from over the border. Those Canadian boarders are nothing but trouble, and never pay their rent on time. In fact, I'm completey tired of renting out rooms. That last guy, from Quebec, wouldn't stop using French names for food. I'm done with him. I'm over the boarder, for sure. The broader issue of boarders, especially Swedish broads, bordering on being boarders but bartering room and board in exchange for making smorgasbords, is bordering on being a bore.
If it doesn't get the business instantaneous money, it'll be half-assed efforts at best, as a half-assed show of good PR
Just out of curiosity, what do you get out of lying about stuff like that? I mean, other than lefty sarcasm points?
many of them will not be happy with anything other than the right to share whatever files they want
Or more precisely, many will not be happy with anything other than the consequence-less ability to rip off entertainment whether or not the people who invest money in creating that entertainment want to give it away for free just that moment.
So, your point is that law enforcement should never have the option to physically stop someone in the middle of a crime? Should not be able to physically restrain someone who is violent? Not be able to prevent a murderer from running away because that would require physically touching them? Is that your position? Say yes or no.
The power of the police comes from the threat of force
You say that like it's a bad thing. How should police deal with people who refuse to stop doing something illegal? Hold their breath until they turn blue? Use extremely stern language, and perhaps threaten to tell their parents? The option to ultimately make use of force (as in, physically stopping someone from doing something dangerous, or physically taking someone to jail if they won't stop stealing from people, etc), if necessary, isn't really an option at all. Otherwise all of us law abiding people and the police we hire would be entirely at the mercy of criminals who are willing to use force, and would gladly do so if there never any consequences.
Put words in other people's mouths much?
No, but you can set your watch by the fact that that silly argumnet will be used. Yep, just down stream, that's exactly what someone lamely tried to do. Never fails.
The flaw is that the musicians aren't the ones making the money!
Ah, yes. There always has to be someone deparate enough to continue to rip off the entertainment they want that they'll make this specious and morally bankrupt argument. I'll even translate it for you: "Artists want to be published, and some of them choose to work with a record label that will front the costs, handle the legal stuff, and take all of the financial risks (which are significant, since most artists are failures at attracting or holding a large audience). And early in their careers, much of the revenue goes to the person who took the financial risk, and spent the up-front money while the artist demonstrates whether or not they have the staying-power to grow, attract a wider audience, and have to clout to negotiate a contract that makes them more money. I hate this because it reminds me of the uncomfortable reality that most poeple aren't talented, and it also reminds me that most artists are terrible business people, and if they didn't go with a professionally managed lable, they would do even worse on their own, and probably lose everything."
That about size it up? Are you forgetting how many labels are started, every year, by the artists themselves? Specifically so they can sign new talent under conditions they think will be attractive to new talent? Have you completely missed the part where an artist with anything like a chance of developing a large following can pick and choose between labels who are competing to offer them more attractive terms? Are you pretending not to notice the number of artists who now self-publish, using any of a zillion of new methods for selling their works?
getting your facts straight before making a fool of yourself in public
Maybe you should try that, before attempting to score rhetorical points using a hollow, junior high school level defense for ripping off music, straight out of 1997 or so. Unless of course you are in junior high school, still, which seems more likely.
So, if we could figure out a way to prove that terrorism, hunger, poverty, AIDS, or whatever injustice hurts the corporate bottom line, we'd see action being taken to clear it up in no time?
You mean, like perhaps the billions of dollars every year that the private sector pours into NGOs that try to educate people in terrorism-spawning hotbeds, into HIV treatment and vaccination programs, etc? Like that?
Certainly there is nothing worse than file sharing going on if this is their priority.
... huh? What's the part that gets you so upset ... that a country's laws are being enforced? If so, then your problem is with the laws enacted by the legislators in those countries, not with the fact that law enforcement officers doing a difficult job happen to be armed as part of their office. If your problem is that the officers are armed, and not with the fact that they're enforcing the law, then make a better case for the fact that officers executing warrants never walk into situations where someone crazy might try to hurt them.
And as we all know, it's impossible for law enforcement agencies to do more than one thing at a time. That's why they stop arresting drunk drivers whenever they hear about a case of domestic violence, or have to give up investigations of child trafficking or currency countfeiting whenever there's been a bank robbery across town.
Now that governments across the globe are mobilizing armed men to eliminate file sharers, the world will be a perfect place
How is that bit of childish sophistry any different than saying, "Now that businesses and loose affiliations of people all across the globe have formed organizations and web sites built specifically to enable ripping things off, the world will be a perfect place"
Or are you mostly just pissed because it seems fewer people than you'd like agree with you about the positive aspects of institutions built around, and publicly celebrating the ripping off of creative people? I suppose this is where you say that authors, musicians, performers, film makers, photographers, actors and all the rest have no choice but to work for The Man, and thus you're doing them a favor by ripping them off, right? That the world is a better place when some 12 year old gets to make an entertainment slave out of their favorite musician?
Or should we stick wiht your original logic, and wonder why anyone should be allowed to enjoy music (ripped off or otherwise) when there's a single unhappy person in the world, or a single mosquito biting a quadraplegic somewhere? After all, we can only focus on one thing at a time, right?
Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court
Which makes sense, since there hasn't been a trial yet. The charges have been re-instated by the prosecutor, so who knows, perhaps we will have a chance to see what a jury thinks about the evidence.
you have no moral leg to stand on
Of course I do. The morality of ripping off the movie has absolutely nothing to do with how good it is, or how well it does in normal sales. Are you saying that shoplifting a donut from a 7-11 is OK, as long as you say that it's stale?
The only difference between most downloads of movies and waiting around to happen to catch it on HBO or something is the timing.
Except that most people do not subscribe to HBO. Only a minority of cable subscribers pay for premium services. Are you suggesting that all of the people who pirate movies also pay for subscription access to HBO, SHO, etc? You know that's BS. Quit embarassing yourself.
You just can't stand to see someone get something for nothing when the other side of the equation means "no sale" at all.
I have no problem with people getting stuff for free. As long as they're getting it according to the wishes of the person who creates it. Plenty of artists and the publishers they work with go to all sorts of trouble to provide entertainment at no cost to their audiences. You're suggesting that everyone should be able to dictate to the artists and their partners when and how that should happen. What you want is pet entertainment slaves who will do your bidding. You're staking out an elastic moral ground where your whim rules, but nobody else gets to have the same power, especially the people who create the stuff you want and demand for free. Fantastic hypocrisy there. Typical. Only the leaches can dictate morality, right? I'll be I know how you vote, too.
Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants?
Because if they don't blur the distinction, much of their agenda becomes entirely too easy to spot, even by idiots.
If you're not concerned about the environment & pollution here's an experiment you can try. Go into your garage, make sure all doors are closed, turn your car on... wait...
Those are some awesome rhetorical skills, there. Wow. Here's a variation: find a spot where far-reaching, comprehensive environmental regulation and changes in people's general attitudes have resulted in changing a toxic, ugly body of water into a clean, thriving, healthy body of water. Excellent. Now, hold your head under that water for several minutes... wait...
Oh, I see. Your experiment proposal is just a bit of snarky BS that doesn't actually point out any causal relationships, meaningfully comment on actual idealogical or real-life policy complexities, or do anything other than show you to be a shrill, foot-stamping sound-biter. A Prius idleing in your garage is going to kill you too, right? Better lump all the Prius owners in with the environment haters, right?
The worst part, in my opinion, is that this isn't even a good movie to pirate.
Really? You evaluate the ethics of ripping something off as a function of its quality? What's it like to have no moral compass whatsoever?
$2900 sounds reasonable to you? Last I checked, that was over 100 times the cost of a DVD.
Ah. So, the penalty for ripping things off should only ever be what you would have paid anyway? All that would be is incentive to rip off everything you consume, and figure that you'll just pay for stuff when you happen to get caught.
The whole point is that most people pay for their goods and for their entertainment. Some people think they are entitled to free stuff just because they know a way to rip it off. A fine that costs more than what an honest person actually pays for goods and services is entirely appropriate, because it's meant as a punishment for being a leech, a thief, etc.
Of course, you know all of that, and you're just being a troll.
If you are in the states you can just say something like "glenn beck is such a leader" and whoever agrees with you... tada
Also, "Al Gore inspired me to carry a gun and some poorly made bombs into the Discovery Channel headquarters where I took hostages in the name of stopping the births of more parasitic human babies. He's my leader." That's always a good test, too. Just listen for the people who say, "Well, you know, he really does have a solid, valid view of things. His protest theatre was just a bit over the top. Everyone knows that giant puppets and drum banging is much more effective. Well, that and smashing a Starbucks window, obviously."
Except how can a person be illegal?
It's easy. They (the illegals) make the decision to piss all over their legal counterparts who actually waited their turn to immigrate in accordance with the law, did the paperwork, and followed the rules. I'm not really sure what rhetorical strategy you're following, asking that question.
The gunman, identified as James Lee, was killed by police
Excellent. As a resident of the county in question, I'm thrilled to not have to pay for trying and jailing that jackass.
If we don't have any more disgusting babies, how will we get people to work the boats on Deadliest Catch, or drive the rigs on Ice Road Truckers?
Why didn't he just jump off the building, and then make an immediate appearance on Ghost Lab? He would have had all the air time in the world to rant about "parasitic human infants" if he could make the first ever actually non-BS appearance on an idiotic cable ghost hunting show.
Anyway, let's hear it for the Montgomery County PD for taking care of this clown. Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.