You embrace tyranny of the majority. Well, in your utopia I would hate to be a minority because the majority could abuse me at will. In your world, the majority could coerce me to be punched in the face on prime time television every night. All that would take is 50.1% of the vote. Isn't that right? That punch would be just and okay in your eyes?
Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Does a transgression by the USA excuse one by Venezuela? The USA is at 1000. Venezuela is at 40. In your world of relativism, 960 more atrocities by Venezuela is just dandy.
I am against injustice everywhere, in the USA or abroad. Aren't you?
I am all for improving the standard of living for the lower class in Venezuela. However, why are you so willing to accept the supression of dissent and the closing down of the free press that is going along with it? Surely if the outcomes of Chavez's government are positive then he will have nothing to worry about from the influence of free expression.
There have been examples of compromises made by the USA for the sake of convenience. For example, the USA puts up with a lot of ethical lapses by the government of Saudi Arabia to protect our oil supply. Examples like this distress me.
Still, I am still an idealist and a true believer in the morality of individual freedoms. I disagree with my government when it compromises those freedoms or cozies up to a government that is not based on enabling personal freedom.
What about you? You seem to be ready to throw in the towel and embrace communism.
There are some great solutions available if you think the effects of Walmart on society are negative.
The first is consumer boycott. Don't shop there yourself and use your influence to persuade other people to voluntarily decide to not shop at Walmart.
The second is share holder influence. Buy stock in Walmart and use your shareholder votes to influence change in corporate practice. You can use your votes and you can influence other shareholders to vote in the same way as you do.
I like both these solutions because they are based on free choice. I'll accept the outcome of your efforts using the means I laid out for you.
Your post implies that oppression is acceptable when your goals are good natured. This is how the Soviet Union started. You are voicing the classic argument of all utopians from history: The end justifies the means. The problem is that the oppression you so readily embrace with glee will become the end in itself. Today's oppression will evolve into toasting yourself and Uncle Joe Stalin with goblets of blood.
I find it ironic that a country like Venezuela embraces open source. Venezuela is lurching towards a command driven enconomy, crushing dissent, and limiting personal freedoms. The utopia envisioned by the communists in Venezuela could never give rise to silicon valley and the oss phenomenon. The personal freedoms of life in the USA create technology and tools that are then made use of in closed societies. That's ironic.
Here is an alternative means of asteroid deflection. Let's park the two remaining USA space shuttles in orbit. We may need to add to their mass by filling them with metal. Then, via remote control, they are ready to set on a collision course with any asteroid that is at risk for a collision with earth. The resulting shuttle to asteroid impact should alter the course of the asteroid or break it up enough to eliminate the planetary threat.
I don't like diesels for simple reasons. It's not because of some sort of unfair stigma. Diesel cars and trucks are louder than gasoline cars and trucks. The exhaust from diesels is visible and it smells bad. I'll take a quiet car that at least pollutes with an oderless and colorless gas.
This is just an example of a company's shareholders exercising their freedom of speech. They are free to speak and you are free to consider their speech when you decide, voluntarily, to shop at Amazon or not.
We need to position something in orbit that we can hurl at incoming asteroids. The impact from the high speed collision would break the asteroid up or deflect it. To be effective, the collision object will need to be quite large. I propose that we position Michael Moore in orbit with some big accelerator rockets lashed to his back. Be a good citizen, Michael, your planet needs you.
Here is one way you can change it. Make your own expensive movie and distribute it without DRM. Prove that it can be done in a way that recovers the costs that went into producing the movie. Go ahead. What's stopping you?
Relying on the free market does not mean you will end up with the result you want for society. However, I'd rather that you accept the outcome rather than attempt to override the free market with involuntary force.
No, not at all. I'm saying that the choice to utilize DRM during distrbution is voluntary. You are free to make an expensive and popular movie and to distribute that movie without DRM. Why don't you do so?
You wrote: So why put all this DRM garbage on a version of the movie released over 10 years later?
I say: Because it is the distributor's choice to do so. Based on the continued sales of T2, I'd say the free market is OK with that.
Here is a challenge for you: please go ahead and produce a film as popular as T2. Please try to recover your production costs without using DRM. There is nothing stopping you from doing this.
You don't need your Mommy government to stop this one. The free market will do just fine.
Make your case in the free and open market place of ideas. People will stop buying DVDs and the DRM will change. If people don't stop buying then you'll realize, again, that you are in the tin foil hat minority.
I agree. Common sense and personal responsibility is the way to tackle this one. Let's not overreact with some heavy handed attempt to legislate our way out of this.
It is interesting to me that some/.'ers who don't understand the role of copyright law to protect movies in a free and open society are the same who are in love with the game industry.
Guess what folks: the game companies and the movie studios are allies on this one.
I agree with you. I just decided not to take my response there. I was more intrigued by envisioning the government of China (censorship lovers) trying to shut down a distributed p2p toolset like BitTorrent.
This is a really interesting post. It makes me wonder about how much BitTorrent is being utilized in societies that are faced with even more censorship. Let's take China for an example. The Chinese government heavily uses censorship as one of the principal pillars keeping it in power. Does anyone know the degree of BitTorrent use in China?
Slashdot Mirror
You embrace tyranny of the majority. Well, in your utopia I would hate to be a minority because the majority could abuse me at will. In your world, the majority could coerce me to be punched in the face on prime time television every night. All that would take is 50.1% of the vote. Isn't that right? That punch would be just and okay in your eyes?
Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Does a transgression by the USA excuse one by Venezuela? The USA is at 1000. Venezuela is at 40. In your world of relativism, 960 more atrocities by Venezuela is just dandy.
I am against injustice everywhere, in the USA or abroad. Aren't you?
I am all for improving the standard of living for the lower class in Venezuela. However, why are you so willing to accept the supression of dissent and the closing down of the free press that is going along with it? Surely if the outcomes of Chavez's government are positive then he will have nothing to worry about from the influence of free expression.
As Buddha said, "When someone points at the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger."
How about Human Rights Watch. Is this unbiased enough for you?
Click here to see the drift towards totalitarianism in Venezuela documented. What say you now?
What does my concern for my fellow man in Venezuela have to do with WMD and Iraq?
There have been examples of compromises made by the USA for the sake of convenience. For example, the USA puts up with a lot of ethical lapses by the government of Saudi Arabia to protect our oil supply. Examples like this distress me.
Still, I am still an idealist and a true believer in the morality of individual freedoms. I disagree with my government when it compromises those freedoms or cozies up to a government that is not based on enabling personal freedom.
What about you? You seem to be ready to throw in the towel and embrace communism.
There are some great solutions available if you think the effects of Walmart on society are negative.
The first is consumer boycott. Don't shop there yourself and use your influence to persuade other people to voluntarily decide to not shop at Walmart.
The second is share holder influence. Buy stock in Walmart and use your shareholder votes to influence change in corporate practice. You can use your votes and you can influence other shareholders to vote in the same way as you do.
I like both these solutions because they are based on free choice. I'll accept the outcome of your efforts using the means I laid out for you.
Your post implies that oppression is acceptable when your goals are good natured. This is how the Soviet Union started. You are voicing the classic argument of all utopians from history: The end justifies the means. The problem is that the oppression you so readily embrace with glee will become the end in itself. Today's oppression will evolve into toasting yourself and Uncle Joe Stalin with goblets of blood.
I find it ironic that a country like Venezuela embraces open source. Venezuela is lurching towards a command driven enconomy, crushing dissent, and limiting personal freedoms. The utopia envisioned by the communists in Venezuela could never give rise to silicon valley and the oss phenomenon. The personal freedoms of life in the USA create technology and tools that are then made use of in closed societies. That's ironic.
Here is an alternative means of asteroid deflection. Let's park the two remaining USA space shuttles in orbit. We may need to add to their mass by filling them with metal. Then, via remote control, they are ready to set on a collision course with any asteroid that is at risk for a collision with earth. The resulting shuttle to asteroid impact should alter the course of the asteroid or break it up enough to eliminate the planetary threat.
I don't like diesels for simple reasons. It's not because of some sort of unfair stigma. Diesel cars and trucks are louder than gasoline cars and trucks. The exhaust from diesels is visible and it smells bad. I'll take a quiet car that at least pollutes with an oderless and colorless gas.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you somehow implying that only paper tiger Iraq hawks care about silly notions like Freedom Of Speech?
So what?
This is just an example of a company's shareholders exercising their freedom of speech. They are free to speak and you are free to consider their speech when you decide, voluntarily, to shop at Amazon or not.
We need to position something in orbit that we can hurl at incoming asteroids. The impact from the high speed collision would break the asteroid up or deflect it. To be effective, the collision object will need to be quite large. I propose that we position Michael Moore in orbit with some big accelerator rockets lashed to his back. Be a good citizen, Michael, your planet needs you.
If it is so easy then surely you'll go for it. Try producing a new popular feature film and don't use DRM in the distribution.
Here is one way you can change it. Make your own expensive movie and distribute it without DRM. Prove that it can be done in a way that recovers the costs that went into producing the movie. Go ahead. What's stopping you?
Relying on the free market does not mean you will end up with the result you want for society. However, I'd rather that you accept the outcome rather than attempt to override the free market with involuntary force.
No, not at all. I'm saying that the choice to utilize DRM during distrbution is voluntary. You are free to make an expensive and popular movie and to distribute that movie without DRM. Why don't you do so?
You wrote: So why put all this DRM garbage on a version of the movie released over 10 years later?
I say: Because it is the distributor's choice to do so. Based on the continued sales of T2, I'd say the free market is OK with that.
Here is a challenge for you: please go ahead and produce a film as popular as T2. Please try to recover your production costs without using DRM. There is nothing stopping you from doing this.
What do you say to the film producer who has sunk a significant fortune into creating the film? How are they supposed to recover those costs?
You don't need your Mommy government to stop this one. The free market will do just fine.
Make your case in the free and open market place of ideas. People will stop buying DVDs and the DRM will change. If people don't stop buying then you'll realize, again, that you are in the tin foil hat minority.
I agree. Common sense and personal responsibility is the way to tackle this one. Let's not overreact with some heavy handed attempt to legislate our way out of this.
It is interesting to me that some /.'ers who don't understand the role of copyright law to protect movies in a free and open society are the same who are in love with the game industry.
Guess what folks: the game companies and the movie studios are allies on this one.
I agree with you. I just decided not to take my response there. I was more intrigued by envisioning the government of China (censorship lovers) trying to shut down a distributed p2p toolset like BitTorrent.
This is a really interesting post. It makes me wonder about how much BitTorrent is being utilized in societies that are faced with even more censorship. Let's take China for an example. The Chinese government heavily uses censorship as one of the principal pillars keeping it in power. Does anyone know the degree of BitTorrent use in China?