Interesting point. Not all forms of labor have equal value.
This is not about value - it is not about compensation, rather it is that they are given a privilege no other group of people are given.
If anybody can write excellent music, it will be a skill that is no longer valuable.
The exact same thing can be said for just about any profession. Again, its not about how much they are compensated - in fact most creators do not even make a living wage under the current system - it is that a certain class of labor is seen as so exceptional as to justify the violation of everyone's basic human right to freedom of self expression.
But what's more plausible? That every single case they parade in front of the public is practically a joke while they keep the real successes secret, and their are practically no failures at all? Or that all they've got are joke cases to begin with, so even the joke cases they don't catch never amount to anything either?
You don't have this right. You are not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example. Some speech does hurt people and it is prohibited. First amendment rights are not unlimited. Copyright is also a method of limiting speech, and it is also authorized by the constitution.
In cases like that it isn't the speech that harms anyone it is the criminal mischief that the speech is used to convey. Similarly, libel laws, false advertising laws, etc do not limit speech, they limit the harm done with speech. However any harm done by a copyright violation is purely an artifact of copyright law to begin with. Constitutional or not, copyright remains a serious infringement on the right of freedom of expression.
It is unfortunate you chose to focus on trying to justify copyright as a necessary restriction on freedom of expression rather than ponder why a certain class of labor is so privileged as to deserve broad infringement of a basic human right instead of being treated as equal to that of all other forms of labor.
Your idea is based on the idea that you should be able to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, so you should be able to download music free, since it isn't hurting anyone. You should have said so earlier.
No, It isn't about hurting someone per se, it is about the basic human right of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression must, by definition, include the right to express anything, even if it is an exact duplicate of something someone else has expressed. If that weren't the case then no one would be able to communicate an idea to a third person.
Then we as a society would decide, yeah, we like art and music, and we are willing to give up some of our self-determinism
Again you are back to equating compensation for creators with copyright, you've just taken one step up the chain and said it is sacrifice of some amount of a human right, although I believe you meant freedom of expression, unless you are proposing some sort of slavery or death in exchange for compensating creators.
Here's something to think about, can you conceive of a way to compensate creators without violating a basic human right? You might start with looking at the way everybody else who works for a living is compensated without violating anyone's human rights.
Hard proof is hard to do when deniability is part of the design. But here is something extremely suspicious, "a weakness that can only be described as a backdoor."
Do you see? Swapping words does not an argument make. You have to also show why you are justified in swapping words.
Other than the specious candy example, you've made my point for me.
The right of self-determinism is a basic human right, just as the right to freedom of expression. Both piracy and murder are violations of the right to self-determinism. Its good that see you piracy and murder on the same level as copyright, you are making progress.
That's true. For every 999 plots they successfully foil, you only hear about the one that got through.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Why? Because a couple of times each year we hear about a new terrorist plot that was foiled. Except when you look into the details it always turns out to be little more than a joke. Like the Sears Tower Plot in Miami or the Fort Dix Plot or the JFK Airport Plot and don't forget the huge media circus surrounding the arrest of Jose Padilla a guy who couldn't even keep a job working at taco bell but was purported to be plotting an attack even deadlier than 9/11. Basically if you hear about a "terrorist arrest" in the news you can make a safe bet that they were no threat at all, most likely the result of some coked up informer trying to save his own ass by manufacturing a plot they can sell to the FBI.
So as long as the best examples of terrorists they can produce to parade around for the news are special olympics rejects, I feel pretty confident that there are no really serious cases that they aren't telling us about. They are just relying on the average american's lack of initiative to pay any attention beyond the highly distorted sound-bites played on CNN and Fox.
That's old school. Today Jack Bauer just tortures the terrorist and gets him to tell the access code before the commercial break.
I've watched pretty much every episode of 24 and I've always thought they did a really good job of depicting torture as an interrogation technique - most of the time Jack gets bad intel. Like when he tortured his brother and his brother told him the truth but just a little truth to throw him off the scent instead of the big conspiracy truth that Jack really needed to know. Then there were the couple of times they tortured innocent people and it really backfired on them, losing any chance of cooperation from them from that point forward. Every once in a while they let Jack get an accurate result from physical torture but it seems to be pretty rare.
I'm biased towards truth. If you have a way to show me it is not true
I've shown you its not true, you just dismissed the proof as "weird" and "sensationalist." What's worse is that for something which is "true" you've been completely unable to defend it other than say the equivalent of "its true because its true." If you really cared about truth that should bother the hell out of you.
suspending that right for a period of time is a good way for artists to get compensation for their work... It doesn't hurt us much, and sometimes helps us.
And yet again with the compensation equivalency. I'll spare you the didactic of swapping the key words to make the same sentences apply equally to slavery as seen through pre-abolitionist eyes.
Then why bother singling out the BNP or any other political party? Why not just leave the criteria at having a history of racism? After all, just because someone is a member of a party doesn't mean they believe in everything or even a majority of what that party promotes. Maybe they are a single issue voter and that's the only party that agrees with their point of view with respect to their single issue? And on the flip side you sure don't have to be a member of any political party to be racist. One rule/law that covers all cases rather than a whole bunch of laws, one for each special case.
It is, in my opinion, unfair to take an artist's work without compensation.
Why can't you just admit it? You have absolutely no way to defend copyright on its own, every single argument you make is just derivative of compensation. The two are so intertwined in your perception of the world that you can't even avoid using the word compensation, it keeps coming out every time you try to reword your statement. You even make the classic error of presuming that the FSF needs copyright when the GPL is clearly just a subversion, a hack, of modern copyright law.
Do you ever actually add anything to a conversation, or are all your conversations like this? It seems instead of engaging in dialog you try to point out mistakes wherever you can.
I've had one simple point from the begining - you are biased for copyright but yet you have no independent defense for it. You've been indoctrinated but don't realize it.
All your justifications for copyright are just justifications for compensating creators and not for the denial of basic human rights that copyright entails. Its unfortunate that you can't recognize the gigantic hole in your perception, instead you keep going around and around making the same error using the same words. It really should be no surprise that I keep pointing out the same fallacy over and over again - you keep using it over and over again.
Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him?
There you go again conflating copyright with compensation. They are not the same. All you do is keep arguing that it isn't fair to a creator to take the result of his work without compensation. That is not the same thing as copyright.
Now a question for you. Would you rather be a slave, or live under the current regime of copyright? Would you rather live as a slave, or live in a world where copyrights lasted a thousand years? Would you rather be a slave, or line in a world where copyright violations were highly criminalized? Comparing the two makes you sound sensationalist.
Human rights are not relative. A lot of slaves had great lives, living far more comfortably than they could have managed on their own. But that didn't make their enslavement any less wrong than a slave who was beaten every day and fed offal.
The feds do not appreciate people who think they can half-ass security measures and get away with it.
Shows what you know. That majority of "fed security measures" are nothing more than CYA. They have procedures, they follow the procedures, they are not allowed to color outside the lines of the procedure even if it is painfully obvious that doing so would be required to have effective security. As long as the official procedures have been followed nobody gets fired or even reprimanded if there is a real security failure.
It is painful to have to deal with this check-list security because anyone with half a brain knows that real-life never follows procedure.
So go ahead, do a half-ass job, in fact do a no-ass job, as long as you get it written down an incorporated into the check-list of security procedures for that site you are home free.
You have not explain why you think copyright is just - all you've done is conflate copyright with compensation and then based your justifications for copyright on justifications for compensation.
As for comparisons to slavery? Not "weird" at all. Copyright is a state-enforced restriction on the freedom of expression - a human right as fundamental as the human right to self-determinism.
Slavery has been around for many years as a way for farmers to better work their land. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the abolitionists (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.
For some reason you have come to the conclusion that because I have one viewpoint, I can't see others. I can.
Seems to me being able to see another viewpoint is irrelevant if you are so willing to dismiss it out of hand.
primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support.
You are right, your bias was clear at the start. Except you weren't applying at the start.
It isn't. It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Having to pay $6 for a movie that cost millions to create is not completely unjust.
Copyright is not the only way to pay for creation - your bias prevents you from distinguishing between the two. Copyright has just become the default because it has been an easy crutch to rely on. Until the internet became widespread that is.
Wherever laws are unjust, the solution is to come up with laws that are just. Coming up with laws that are unjust in the opposite direction is something that's been tried, and it's not good.
And here you betray your bias. What if copyright itself is completely unjust?
You might as well argue that a little bit of slavery is OK because we have to be fair to the slave owners. After all they paid for the food, lodging, medical treatment, etc of their slave, it would be unfair to just arbitrarily release the slaves.
But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.
And it is our call if we want to take them to task for it. This freedom of speech thing works both ways.
Re:Animism On the Dance Floor
on
Parrots Can Dance
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
humans can't possibly know when those species are dancing according to their own standards, or for that matter when they're doing something they'd consider to be other than dancing but fits the human criteria as a false positive.
The word "dance" is a human word, it means whatever humans want it to. Thus it doesn't matter what another species "thinks" - if we say they are dancing, then they are dancing.
I just can't see a bunch of Colombians walking into General Dynamics and investing in anti-drone technologies.
That sort of thinking is exactly the same as what the british did when they stood in formation and let the patriots pick them off from their hiding spots in the woods. Those guys in iraq didn't go to GD and ask them to build them any land mines either.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point. Not all forms of labor have equal value.
This is not about value - it is not about compensation, rather it is that they are given a privilege no other group of people are given.
If anybody can write excellent music, it will be a skill that is no longer valuable.
The exact same thing can be said for just about any profession. Again, its not about how much they are compensated - in fact most creators do not even make a living wage under the current system - it is that a certain class of labor is seen as so exceptional as to justify the violation of everyone's basic human right to freedom of self expression.
Known knowns and known unknowns...
But what's more plausible? That every single case they parade in front of the public is practically a joke while they keep the real successes secret, and their are practically no failures at all? Or that all they've got are joke cases to begin with, so even the joke cases they don't catch never amount to anything either?
You don't have this right. You are not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example. Some speech does hurt people and it is prohibited. First amendment rights are not unlimited. Copyright is also a method of limiting speech, and it is also authorized by the constitution.
In cases like that it isn't the speech that harms anyone it is the criminal mischief that the speech is used to convey. Similarly, libel laws, false advertising laws, etc do not limit speech, they limit the harm done with speech. However any harm done by a copyright violation is purely an artifact of copyright law to begin with. Constitutional or not, copyright remains a serious infringement on the right of freedom of expression.
It is unfortunate you chose to focus on trying to justify copyright as a necessary restriction on freedom of expression rather than ponder why a certain class of labor is so privileged as to deserve broad infringement of a basic human right instead of being treated as equal to that of all other forms of labor.
Your idea is based on the idea that you should be able to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, so you should be able to download music free, since it isn't hurting anyone. You should have said so earlier.
No, It isn't about hurting someone per se, it is about the basic human right of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression must, by definition, include the right to express anything, even if it is an exact duplicate of something someone else has expressed. If that weren't the case then no one would be able to communicate an idea to a third person.
Then we as a society would decide, yeah, we like art and music, and we are willing to give up some of our self-determinism
Again you are back to equating compensation for creators with copyright, you've just taken one step up the chain and said it is sacrifice of some amount of a human right, although I believe you meant freedom of expression, unless you are proposing some sort of slavery or death in exchange for compensating creators.
Here's something to think about, can you conceive of a way to compensate creators without violating a basic human right? You might start with looking at the way everybody else who works for a living is compensated without violating anyone's human rights.
Prove the NSA backdoors
Hard proof is hard to do when deniability is part of the design.
But here is something extremely suspicious, "a weakness that can only be described as a backdoor."
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/11/securitymatters_1115
Do you see? Swapping words does not an argument make. You have to also show why you are justified in swapping words.
Other than the specious candy example, you've made my point for me.
The right of self-determinism is a basic human right, just as the right to freedom of expression. Both piracy and murder are violations of the right to self-determinism. Its good that see you piracy and murder on the same level as copyright, you are making progress.
How about more current news reports then?
That's true. For every 999 plots they successfully foil, you only hear about the one that got through.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Why? Because a couple of times each year we hear about a new terrorist plot that was foiled. Except when you look into the details it always turns out to be little more than a joke. Like the Sears Tower Plot in Miami or the Fort Dix Plot or the JFK Airport Plot and don't forget the huge media circus surrounding the arrest of Jose Padilla a guy who couldn't even keep a job working at taco bell but was purported to be plotting an attack even deadlier than 9/11. Basically if you hear about a "terrorist arrest" in the news you can make a safe bet that they were no threat at all, most likely the result of some coked up informer trying to save his own ass by manufacturing a plot they can sell to the FBI.
So as long as the best examples of terrorists they can produce to parade around for the news are special olympics rejects, I feel pretty confident that there are no really serious cases that they aren't telling us about. They are just relying on the average american's lack of initiative to pay any attention beyond the highly distorted sound-bites played on CNN and Fox.
That's old school. Today Jack Bauer just tortures the terrorist and gets him to tell the access code before the commercial break.
I've watched pretty much every episode of 24 and I've always thought they did a really good job of depicting torture as an interrogation technique - most of the time Jack gets bad intel. Like when he tortured his brother and his brother told him the truth but just a little truth to throw him off the scent instead of the big conspiracy truth that Jack really needed to know. Then there were the couple of times they tortured innocent people and it really backfired on them, losing any chance of cooperation from them from that point forward. Every once in a while they let Jack get an accurate result from physical torture but it seems to be pretty rare.
Bingo!
I'm biased towards truth. If you have a way to show me it is not true
I've shown you its not true, you just dismissed the proof as "weird" and "sensationalist." What's worse is that for something which is "true" you've been completely unable to defend it other than say the equivalent of "its true because its true." If you really cared about truth that should bother the hell out of you.
suspending that right for a period of time is a good way for artists to get compensation for their work ... It doesn't hurt us much, and sometimes helps us.
And yet again with the compensation equivalency. I'll spare you the didactic of swapping the key words to make the same sentences apply equally to slavery as seen through pre-abolitionist eyes.
Then why bother singling out the BNP or any other political party? Why not just leave the criteria at having a history of racism? After all, just because someone is a member of a party doesn't mean they believe in everything or even a majority of what that party promotes. Maybe they are a single issue voter and that's the only party that agrees with their point of view with respect to their single issue? And on the flip side you sure don't have to be a member of any political party to be racist. One rule/law that covers all cases rather than a whole bunch of laws, one for each special case.
It is, in my opinion, unfair to take an artist's work without compensation.
Why can't you just admit it? You have absolutely no way to defend copyright on its own, every single argument you make is just derivative of compensation. The two are so intertwined in your perception of the world that you can't even avoid using the word compensation, it keeps coming out every time you try to reword your statement. You even make the classic error of presuming that the FSF needs copyright when the GPL is clearly just a subversion, a hack, of modern copyright law.
Do you ever actually add anything to a conversation, or are all your conversations like this? It seems instead of engaging in dialog you try to point out mistakes wherever you can.
I've had one simple point from the begining - you are biased for copyright but yet you have no independent defense for it. You've been indoctrinated but don't realize it.
All your justifications for copyright are just justifications for compensating creators and not for the denial of basic human rights that copyright entails. Its unfortunate that you can't recognize the gigantic hole in your perception, instead you keep going around and around making the same error using the same words. It really should be no surprise that I keep pointing out the same fallacy over and over again - you keep using it over and over again.
I'm sure anything they need can be included as part of the food they eat, or at worst a supplement of some sort.
Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him?
There you go again conflating copyright with compensation. They are not the same. All you do is keep arguing that it isn't fair to a creator to take the result of his work without compensation. That is not the same thing as copyright.
Now a question for you. Would you rather be a slave, or live under the current regime of copyright? Would you rather live as a slave, or live in a world where copyrights lasted a thousand years? Would you rather be a slave, or line in a world where copyright violations were highly criminalized? Comparing the two makes you sound sensationalist.
Human rights are not relative. A lot of slaves had great lives, living far more comfortably than they could have managed on their own. But that didn't make their enslavement any less wrong than a slave who was beaten every day and fed offal.
Might as well just ad Prozium to the water supply.
The feds do not appreciate people who think they can half-ass security measures and get away with it.
Shows what you know. That majority of "fed security measures" are nothing more than CYA. They have procedures, they follow the procedures, they are not allowed to color outside the lines of the procedure even if it is painfully obvious that doing so would be required to have effective security. As long as the official procedures have been followed nobody gets fired or even reprimanded if there is a real security failure.
It is painful to have to deal with this check-list security because anyone with half a brain knows that real-life never follows procedure.
So go ahead, do a half-ass job, in fact do a no-ass job, as long as you get it written down an incorporated into the check-list of security procedures for that site you are home free.
Funny.
You have not explain why you think copyright is just - all you've done is conflate copyright with compensation and then based your justifications for copyright on justifications for compensation.
As for comparisons to slavery? Not "weird" at all. Copyright is a state-enforced restriction on the freedom of expression - a human right as fundamental as the human right to self-determinism.
Well the. It doesn't matter what you think. If I say something, that's what it is. Thus, I'm always right and you're always wrong. Did I get it right?
Not by a long shot.
Slavery has been around for many years as a way for farmers to better work their land. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the abolitionists (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.
For some reason you have come to the conclusion that because I have one viewpoint, I can't see others. I can.
Seems to me being able to see another viewpoint is irrelevant if you are so willing to dismiss it out of hand.
primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support.
You are right, your bias was clear at the start. Except you weren't applying at the start.
It isn't. It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Having to pay $6 for a movie that cost millions to create is not completely unjust.
Copyright is not the only way to pay for creation - your bias prevents you from distinguishing between the two. Copyright has just become the default because it has been an easy crutch to rely on. Until the internet became widespread that is.
Wherever laws are unjust, the solution is to come up with laws that are just. Coming up with laws that are unjust in the opposite direction is something that's been tried, and it's not good.
And here you betray your bias. What if copyright itself is completely unjust?
You might as well argue that a little bit of slavery is OK because we have to be fair to the slave owners. After all they paid for the food, lodging, medical treatment, etc of their slave, it would be unfair to just arbitrarily release the slaves.
But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.
And it is our call if we want to take them to task for it. This freedom of speech thing works both ways.
humans can't possibly know when those species are dancing according to their own standards, or for that matter when they're doing something they'd consider to be other than dancing but fits the human criteria as a false positive.
The word "dance" is a human word, it means whatever humans want it to. Thus it doesn't matter what another species "thinks" - if we say they are dancing, then they are dancing.
I just can't see a bunch of Colombians walking into General Dynamics and investing in anti-drone technologies.
That sort of thinking is exactly the same as what the british did when they stood in formation and let the patriots pick them off from their hiding spots in the woods. Those guys in iraq didn't go to GD and ask them to build them any land mines either.