When I buy a Google/ASUS co-branded Nexus 7 tablet from Google Play Store, how am I not the customer?
Google mades a bit over $14 billion revenue. Just under $13 billion of that is from advertisement.
Apple makes the vast majority of its $54 billion revenue on hardware, a small part ($4 billion) on software and iTunes sales and its advertisement revenue is so small it vanishes somewhere under "services" and I couldn't quickly find a number for it.
Ask yourself which company is more likely to sell out your data to advertisers. The one that makes 90% of its money from them and 10% from you, or the one that makes 98% of its profits from you and 2% from them.
Counterpoint: Your hypothetical 0.01% don't have arrest powers.....
Errr... which country do you live in where the 0.01% have not yet bought the government and purchased laws that for all practical purposes give them their own legal system?
If you piss off a billionaire enough, I'm quite sure he can get you arrested or worse. It's amazing what enough money can buy.
since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate
After 30 years of software cracking you still think this? Really?
0-days where a cracker term long before they referred to exploits. There are very few big-name games, DRM or not, that are not available as illegal copies on the day of their release.
I completely agree that illegal copying does impact sales, with the amount of lost sales being a very difficult subject. But that DRM impacts copying in any measurable way? You need proof for that.
The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
True. The limit, however, is mostly time-based and as such meaningless to this discussion, and especially about computer games which will basically never leave copyright, because when the copyright term is up you will have a very hard time just finding a computer that can still play it.
And for practical purposes, not one single computer game is out of copyright at this time, not even Pong (its copyright will expire in 2062, if I'm not mistaken).
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly.
Not to existing laws. I propose that if we really want to figure out if DRM impacts sales, we need to make identical products available with and without. Since publishers are unwilling to do that, compulsory licensing would accomplish it.
It goes back to the other comments, while others cannot track you. That doesn't mean Apple isn't doing the collecting themselves and selling it off, or being requested by the FBI, NSA to give up what they have.
This makes for a pointless argument. Essentially you are saying that turning tracking off completely somehow gets respected, but turning it off selectively somehow doesn't. That makes absolutely no sense. If they want to sell you out, it doesn't matter how you disable tracking.
the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Uh no, it doesn't. It's a pretty good indication that those responsible for distribution think that this is so, but not that it actually is so. Their thoughts may be correct, or false, but it is still believe and not fact.
Except you are twisting copyrights
You're seriously arguing against pretty much every economist? GIYF, search for appropriate terms and you'll find that copyrights are regarded as a form of monopoly by everyone who has actually studied the subject. I didn't, and I won't waste my time on an argument that has been settled decades ago.
put this whole discussion into much the same frame as the "war on drugs," meaning things can't be uninvented and attempts to overly regulate many of them may result in more net harm than good.
That's not true. Many countries have strict gun control laws without the insanity of the USA, meaning both the "war on drugs" insanity and the crazy homicide rates.
Which works by Bluetooth, not WiFi, and it's basically a Bluetooth broadcaster. Also, it is opt-in.
In the same way, they cracked down on apps that used phone serial numbers, IMEIs and similar; but then built an "advertising identifier" right into their OS.
Say thank you to the advertisers who make such crap necessary.
Yes, technologically, it would be much better if we didn't have to do things like this. Spam filters and RBLs and greylisting make debugging e-mail delivery problems hell as well. But you can't have working e-mail without them, because if you try, you get flooded by spam.
Same thing. Yes I agree technologically it would be better to not have to do this. Unfortunately, we have to.
The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy.
And that's why I argue against this stupidity, because you seriously think violently raping someone with a deadly weapon falls into the same category as consentual fun between adults that all parties involved enjoy, it just falls outside the too-narrow scope of the law.
If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you
Your mind is made up and you are emotional. It is your mindset that is totally fucked up. You really think that there's no interaction and empathy in a loving relationship and that men are robots that don't understand that what's totally fine in situation A is not so in situation B. I hope the medium of text is to blame and you don't really live and feel that way because I'd be sorry for you if you do.
You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission.
I don't know and frankly I don't care where your anger comes from, but again your argument is personal, emotional and completely besides the point. The only thing I don't want is tons of things that are not rape be thrown in with it, because rape is too serious a crime to be muddied up like that.
The rest of your drivel I won't even comment on. You are foaming at the mouth, not having an argument. Apparently I triggered something in you and you can't stand the thought that real life is more complicated than the textbooks say, especially in situations that become he-said-she-said when they go to trial.
Being opposed to jailing innocent people is not the same as being pro-criminal. On the contrary, the justice system has a duty not only to convict the criminals, but also to acquit the innocent. In crimes against humanity, this is often forgotten when people ask for stricter sentencing, stronger punishments, etc.
But especially in rape, the situation is more complex than you like. For example, a nine-year study of a small metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States found that 41% of rape accusations were false. (Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1)). Another report found that DNA evidence excluded the primary suspect in 26% of rape cases (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf). Then you have the purely legal fictions. swedish law can be interpreted to make it a rape if a mans penis touches (without penetration) a womens vagina while both are sleeping - of course that never, ever, happens, right? Or it can be read as the act being rape if the women is physically restrained, even if she doesn't resist or object - which makes large sections of BDSM play legally rape.
Then on the other hand we still have laws that make forced sex not rape if you are married, or where consent can not be legally withdrawn after penetration has occurred, which are just as crazy. But of course, you will completely ignore this and continue accusing me of total nonsense, because for all I can tell, you don't want to have justice and fair laws, you want to shoot every accused rapist without trial, because the crime is so horrible it shouldn't need such things as balance and proof.
What you're saying is backed up by "I want to fuck sleeping and drunk girls without their permission, and anyone who says that's wrong is a feminazi".
Actually, let's get the personal attacks out of here. I apologize for mine. For the record: I hate drunk people, can't stand them. However, I have fucked sleeping girls - namely girlfriends who explicitly asked me to wake them with sex because they like it. Now you can call me a rapist, even if all parties actually involved would disagree strongly with you. So much for "backed up by the law".
But you don't even want to have to get a damned smile from your "partner" before sticking it in.
You're tied up in emotions. You don't know me and yet you think I'm pro-rape simply because I'm against unlimited expansion of the term. Let's be clear here: If someone were to rape my girlfriend, I wouldn't call the cops, I'd call some friends, get a gun, and shoot the bastard. But if female friends of mine tell me about how they drank a bit too much the other night and ended up in bed with this guy and the next morning they just wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and pray they didn't actually fuck but they're not sure, then my advise to them is not to call the cops, but to drink less.
Maybe I'm simple and stupid in that regard, because I don't drink at all and I don't understand why people get drunk, and I don't like them when they do, but if you incapacitate yourself, I have little sympathy for you. Now if someone puts a drug into your drink, that's a completely different territory.
Why are you complaining about me quoting YOUR preferred study?
You are hand-picking, one of the worst sins in statistics. I mentioned the variety of studies and methods and named one as an example, and now you're drawing all your arguments from that source. Honest arguments don't work like that.
Hey, let's take it even further. I'm *thrilled* to know that if you get drunk to the point that you're incoherent or unconscious, then that counts as consent to take your wallet. And if you get drunk, I'm sure I'm going to love getting to take your car. And burn down your house. I appreciate the fact that to you, being incapacitated is consent to whatever the people around you want to do. This is going to be lots of fun!
You're foaming at the mouth. You should stop doing that.
but let's not play dumb - if you see a person who's slurring their speech, can hardly stand up, and doesn't seem to understand where they are, don't act all dumb and say, "Oh, I thought she was perfectly cogent to make informed decisions!"
You missed the point. In most (83% in one report) cases, it is not the case of one person being sober and exploiting another, but both being drunk. Your case is the minority, and I completely agree on those cases.
The point is that we have a product, let's call it X. And then we have distribution of the product. This includes changes to the product itself, like DRM. Let's call this product Xa.
In a free market, it would be possible for a different distributor to source product X and make other (or no) changes, resulting in product Xb. The two products Xa and Xb would then compete in the market. If one of the various Xb, Xc, Xd etc. was without DRM, you could actually compare identical products with DRM vs. without DRM and you could measure if DRM has a meaningful impact on sales, customer satisfaction, etc. etc.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly;
Copyright grants the "exclusive right" to a work, which is considered a (limited) monopoly by pretty much every economical text on the subject. You can argue with my ideas and conclusions, but let's not waste time on doubting established facts.
The problem is that the USA has dug itself deep into a hole and getting out is hard.
Once you have guns in the population, stricter gun control laws lead to a shift of the existing stockpile towards criminals, which probably results in higher crime. Basically: The criminals still have all the guns they used to, while the citizen don't.
Gun control laws don't work short-term. They only work long-term, if you manage to actually remove the existing guns from the population.
While I agree with you this is corruption, if the choice is between a union that moves government money into the pockets of at least some citizens vs. a lobby group that moves government money into the pockets of the 0.01% then I'd rather have the former.
Keep watching and check where the new candidate moves the money to.
We foolishly assume that the government and media cartels dislike what he's doing, but they may just as well consider him a useful pawn and play him. The same way we think casinos don't like it when someone actually wins the jackpot, while the opposite is true.
I don't know. I'm kinda of the thought that we're all selfish assholes.
To some degree.
There's still a difference between being a human being and being a scumbag who'd sell his grandma and thinks nothing about ruining others for his personal gain.
Some of us have ethics and a feeling of belonging to the society we are a part of, and then there are some people who have only themselves and a strong feeling that society exists to be exploited.
It's a matter of degrees, but it's usually fairly easy to spot those who've passed a certain threshold. We call them psychopaths, btw. and many top-level business people show characteristics of it.
You have to get affirmative, withdrawable consent, from someone who can legally consent, every time. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
Because you try to put hard definitions on soft interactions.
By your definition, I am a serial rapist, because I have had a few girlfriends who enjoyed being woken up with sex, and had explicitly asked me to do so. In my book, that is consent, and in a loving relationship it's easy to check if her body responds to your touch or not. But by your definition, that is rape because she was asleep and did not consent to that specific event.
And that's what I dislike. This zero-tolerance motivated ultra-extremist definitions. Thanks to feminist lobbying gone wild, we now have some jurisdictions where she can consent 100% to sex, and as soon as she says "no" during intercourse, the whole thing is rape, even if you stop immediately. Or where she can change her mind the next day and turn a fully consentual sex act into rape, even if before and at and even after the event itself absolutely nothing she said or did indicated non-consent.
I'm strongly opposed to these extremist definitions that muddy the water, because they make it harder to fight the real problem.
Oh, please, cut it with the rape-apologism BS. "Rape is not clearly defined?" If you don't get an affirmative, withdrawable yes from someone who can legally consent, it's rape. What is so damned hard about that?
I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth, but that's not my problem.
The hard part (no pun intended) is that very few human beings begin a sexual activity by signing a clearly spelled-out contract. As such, we often end up with different interpretations after the fact. In addition, in some jurisdictions it is legally rape even if the women explicitly consented to sex and then changed her mind during or even after intercourse.
Your primitive try at statistics is laughable, please try again, or simply read some statistics that have already done the math for you.
When you go into the studies instead of just reading the boilerplate, you find gems like some studies classifying things as rape that even the women interviewed did not consider such. You find that when drinking is involved, the vast majority of cases (one report says 83%) are not cases of the alleged perpetrator getting his victim drunk, but of social drinking and morning-after-regrets. Frankly speaking: If you consider this rape, then you have a curious case of a crime where both parties are equally victim and perpetrator, because by the same definition, the man was just as much raped as the woman.
Here's what gets me angry: That there are real women out there experiencing real rape. Not the kind where you wake up and look to your right and think "what the fuck have I done?", but the kind where you need therapy afterwards, because it's not a joke.
And these women are done a massive disservice by self-interested lobby groups classifying every unpleasant sexual encounter as "rape".
And if you really think that being physically attacked and penetrated against your will falls even into the same category of things as having a beer too many and regretting going home with that guy the next day, then you need to have your head examined.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
Again, you miss the point. I am not talking about producers, I am talking about distributors.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free.
Has it occured to you that DRM might not be the only factor that people consider when they buy a game, even if they are strongly interested in their rights?
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
Which is kind of the whole point of anti-trust laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I refer to my reply to the other guy. Sure, one-liners always simplify facts, but in this case, it's pretty clear cut.
When I buy a Google/ASUS co-branded Nexus 7 tablet from Google Play Store, how am I not the customer?
Google mades a bit over $14 billion revenue. Just under $13 billion of that is from advertisement.
Apple makes the vast majority of its $54 billion revenue on hardware, a small part ($4 billion) on software and iTunes sales and its advertisement revenue is so small it vanishes somewhere under "services" and I couldn't quickly find a number for it.
Ask yourself which company is more likely to sell out your data to advertisers. The one that makes 90% of its money from them and 10% from you, or the one that makes 98% of its profits from you and 2% from them.
Counterpoint: Your hypothetical 0.01% don't have arrest powers.....
Errr... which country do you live in where the 0.01% have not yet bought the government and purchased laws that for all practical purposes give them their own legal system?
If you piss off a billionaire enough, I'm quite sure he can get you arrested or worse. It's amazing what enough money can buy.
since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate
After 30 years of software cracking you still think this? Really?
0-days where a cracker term long before they referred to exploits. There are very few big-name games, DRM or not, that are not available as illegal copies on the day of their release.
I completely agree that illegal copying does impact sales, with the amount of lost sales being a very difficult subject. But that DRM impacts copying in any measurable way? You need proof for that.
The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
True. The limit, however, is mostly time-based and as such meaningless to this discussion, and especially about computer games which will basically never leave copyright, because when the copyright term is up you will have a very hard time just finding a computer that can still play it.
And for practical purposes, not one single computer game is out of copyright at this time, not even Pong (its copyright will expire in 2062, if I'm not mistaken).
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly.
Not to existing laws. I propose that if we really want to figure out if DRM impacts sales, we need to make identical products available with and without. Since publishers are unwilling to do that, compulsory licensing would accomplish it.
It goes back to the other comments, while others cannot track you. That doesn't mean Apple isn't doing the collecting themselves and selling it off, or being requested by the FBI, NSA to give up what they have.
This makes for a pointless argument. Essentially you are saying that turning tracking off completely somehow gets respected, but turning it off selectively somehow doesn't. That makes absolutely no sense. If they want to sell you out, it doesn't matter how you disable tracking.
the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Uh no, it doesn't. It's a pretty good indication that those responsible for distribution think that this is so, but not that it actually is so. Their thoughts may be correct, or false, but it is still believe and not fact.
Except you are twisting copyrights
You're seriously arguing against pretty much every economist? GIYF, search for appropriate terms and you'll find that copyrights are regarded as a form of monopoly by everyone who has actually studied the subject. I didn't, and I won't waste my time on an argument that has been settled decades ago.
GP was about GPS location tracking. ;-)
put this whole discussion into much the same frame as the "war on drugs," meaning things can't be uninvented and attempts to overly regulate many of them may result in more net harm than good.
That's not true. Many countries have strict gun control laws without the insanity of the USA, meaning both the "war on drugs" insanity and the crazy homicide rates.
Location tracking stays turned off in my iOS device. A nuisance when you want a quick look at the streetmap of the area you're in.
You know you can turn it on and off selectively, yes? Allowing certain apps to use it, but others not?
Apple went and deliberately developed "iBeacon"
Which works by Bluetooth, not WiFi, and it's basically a Bluetooth broadcaster. Also, it is opt-in.
In the same way, they cracked down on apps that used phone serial numbers, IMEIs and similar; but then built an "advertising identifier" right into their OS.
That you can opt out of.
Say thank you to the advertisers who make such crap necessary.
Yes, technologically, it would be much better if we didn't have to do things like this. Spam filters and RBLs and greylisting make debugging e-mail delivery problems hell as well. But you can't have working e-mail without them, because if you try, you get flooded by spam.
Same thing. Yes I agree technologically it would be better to not have to do this. Unfortunately, we have to.
It is true.
The reason is that for Apple, you are the customer. For Google, you are the product, because its customers are the advertisers.
The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy.
And that's why I argue against this stupidity, because you seriously think violently raping someone with a deadly weapon falls into the same category as consentual fun between adults that all parties involved enjoy, it just falls outside the too-narrow scope of the law.
If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you
Your mind is made up and you are emotional. It is your mindset that is totally fucked up. You really think that there's no interaction and empathy in a loving relationship and that men are robots that don't understand that what's totally fine in situation A is not so in situation B. I hope the medium of text is to blame and you don't really live and feel that way because I'd be sorry for you if you do.
You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission.
I don't know and frankly I don't care where your anger comes from, but again your argument is personal, emotional and completely besides the point. The only thing I don't want is tons of things that are not rape be thrown in with it, because rape is too serious a crime to be muddied up like that.
The rest of your drivel I won't even comment on. You are foaming at the mouth, not having an argument. Apparently I triggered something in you and you can't stand the thought that real life is more complicated than the textbooks say, especially in situations that become he-said-she-said when they go to trial.
Being opposed to jailing innocent people is not the same as being pro-criminal. On the contrary, the justice system has a duty not only to convict the criminals, but also to acquit the innocent. In crimes against humanity, this is often forgotten when people ask for stricter sentencing, stronger punishments, etc.
But especially in rape, the situation is more complex than you like. For example, a nine-year study of a small metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States found that 41% of rape accusations were false. (Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1)). Another report found that DNA evidence excluded the primary suspect in 26% of rape cases (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf). Then you have the purely legal fictions. swedish law can be interpreted to make it a rape if a mans penis touches (without penetration) a womens vagina while both are sleeping - of course that never, ever, happens, right? Or it can be read as the act being rape if the women is physically restrained, even if she doesn't resist or object - which makes large sections of BDSM play legally rape.
Then on the other hand we still have laws that make forced sex not rape if you are married, or where consent can not be legally withdrawn after penetration has occurred, which are just as crazy. But of course, you will completely ignore this and continue accusing me of total nonsense, because for all I can tell, you don't want to have justice and fair laws, you want to shoot every accused rapist without trial, because the crime is so horrible it shouldn't need such things as balance and proof.
What you're saying is backed up by "I want to fuck sleeping and drunk girls without their permission, and anyone who says that's wrong is a feminazi".
Actually, let's get the personal attacks out of here. I apologize for mine. For the record: I hate drunk people, can't stand them. However, I have fucked sleeping girls - namely girlfriends who explicitly asked me to wake them with sex because they like it. Now you can call me a rapist, even if all parties actually involved would disagree strongly with you. So much for "backed up by the law".
But you don't even want to have to get a damned smile from your "partner" before sticking it in.
You're tied up in emotions. You don't know me and yet you think I'm pro-rape simply because I'm against unlimited expansion of the term. Let's be clear here: If someone were to rape my girlfriend, I wouldn't call the cops, I'd call some friends, get a gun, and shoot the bastard. But if female friends of mine tell me about how they drank a bit too much the other night and ended up in bed with this guy and the next morning they just wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and pray they didn't actually fuck but they're not sure, then my advise to them is not to call the cops, but to drink less.
Maybe I'm simple and stupid in that regard, because I don't drink at all and I don't understand why people get drunk, and I don't like them when they do, but if you incapacitate yourself, I have little sympathy for you. Now if someone puts a drug into your drink, that's a completely different territory.
Why are you complaining about me quoting YOUR preferred study?
You are hand-picking, one of the worst sins in statistics. I mentioned the variety of studies and methods and named one as an example, and now you're drawing all your arguments from that source. Honest arguments don't work like that.
Hey, let's take it even further. I'm *thrilled* to know that if you get drunk to the point that you're incoherent or unconscious, then that counts as consent to take your wallet. And if you get drunk, I'm sure I'm going to love getting to take your car. And burn down your house. I appreciate the fact that to you, being incapacitated is consent to whatever the people around you want to do. This is going to be lots of fun!
You're foaming at the mouth. You should stop doing that.
but let's not play dumb - if you see a person who's slurring their speech, can hardly stand up, and doesn't seem to understand where they are, don't act all dumb and say, "Oh, I thought she was perfectly cogent to make informed decisions!"
You missed the point. In most (83% in one report) cases, it is not the case of one person being sober and exploiting another, but both being drunk. Your case is the minority, and I completely agree on those cases.
There's no fitting car analogy.
The point is that we have a product, let's call it X.
And then we have distribution of the product. This includes changes to the product itself, like DRM. Let's call this product Xa.
In a free market, it would be possible for a different distributor to source product X and make other (or no) changes, resulting in product Xb. The two products Xa and Xb would then compete in the market. If one of the various Xb, Xc, Xd etc. was without DRM, you could actually compare identical products with DRM vs. without DRM and you could measure if DRM has a meaningful impact on sales, customer satisfaction, etc. etc.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly;
Copyright grants the "exclusive right" to a work, which is considered a (limited) monopoly by pretty much every economical text on the subject. You can argue with my ideas and conclusions, but let's not waste time on doubting established facts.
Uh... yeah... right.
"fraudulent investor". Sure. That and a dozen other crimes, several narrow escapes from the law, and the list goes on.
"legitimate file trading"... err... suuuure. You've never read a thing about what police uncovered in internal communications, it seems.
The problem is that the USA has dug itself deep into a hole and getting out is hard.
Once you have guns in the population, stricter gun control laws lead to a shift of the existing stockpile towards criminals, which probably results in higher crime. Basically: The criminals still have all the guns they used to, while the citizen don't.
Gun control laws don't work short-term. They only work long-term, if you manage to actually remove the existing guns from the population.
While I agree with you this is corruption, if the choice is between a union that moves government money into the pockets of at least some citizens vs. a lobby group that moves government money into the pockets of the 0.01% then I'd rather have the former.
Keep watching and check where the new candidate moves the money to.
Uh... no?
The military doesn't think that camouflage deflects bullets. That's the important difference.
There is not even need for a conspiracy.
We foolishly assume that the government and media cartels dislike what he's doing, but they may just as well consider him a useful pawn and play him. The same way we think casinos don't like it when someone actually wins the jackpot, while the opposite is true.
I don't know. I'm kinda of the thought that we're all selfish assholes.
To some degree.
There's still a difference between being a human being and being a scumbag who'd sell his grandma and thinks nothing about ruining others for his personal gain.
Some of us have ethics and a feeling of belonging to the society we are a part of, and then there are some people who have only themselves and a strong feeling that society exists to be exploited.
It's a matter of degrees, but it's usually fairly easy to spot those who've passed a certain threshold. We call them psychopaths, btw. and many top-level business people show characteristics of it.
You have to get affirmative, withdrawable consent, from someone who can legally consent, every time. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
Because you try to put hard definitions on soft interactions.
By your definition, I am a serial rapist, because I have had a few girlfriends who enjoyed being woken up with sex, and had explicitly asked me to do so. In my book, that is consent, and in a loving relationship it's easy to check if her body responds to your touch or not. But by your definition, that is rape because she was asleep and did not consent to that specific event.
And that's what I dislike. This zero-tolerance motivated ultra-extremist definitions. Thanks to feminist lobbying gone wild, we now have some jurisdictions where she can consent 100% to sex, and as soon as she says "no" during intercourse, the whole thing is rape, even if you stop immediately. Or where she can change her mind the next day and turn a fully consentual sex act into rape, even if before and at and even after the event itself absolutely nothing she said or did indicated non-consent.
I'm strongly opposed to these extremist definitions that muddy the water, because they make it harder to fight the real problem.
Oh, please, cut it with the rape-apologism BS. "Rape is not clearly defined?" If you don't get an affirmative, withdrawable yes from someone who can legally consent, it's rape. What is so damned hard about that?
I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth, but that's not my problem.
The hard part (no pun intended) is that very few human beings begin a sexual activity by signing a clearly spelled-out contract. As such, we often end up with different interpretations after the fact. In addition, in some jurisdictions it is legally rape even if the women explicitly consented to sex and then changed her mind during or even after intercourse.
Your primitive try at statistics is laughable, please try again, or simply read some statistics that have already done the math for you.
When you go into the studies instead of just reading the boilerplate, you find gems like some studies classifying things as rape that even the women interviewed did not consider such. You find that when drinking is involved, the vast majority of cases (one report says 83%) are not cases of the alleged perpetrator getting his victim drunk, but of social drinking and morning-after-regrets. Frankly speaking: If you consider this rape, then you have a curious case of a crime where both parties are equally victim and perpetrator, because by the same definition, the man was just as much raped as the woman.
Here's what gets me angry: That there are real women out there experiencing real rape. Not the kind where you wake up and look to your right and think "what the fuck have I done?", but the kind where you need therapy afterwards, because it's not a joke.
And these women are done a massive disservice by self-interested lobby groups classifying every unpleasant sexual encounter as "rape".
And if you really think that being physically attacked and penetrated against your will falls even into the same category of things as having a beer too many and regretting going home with that guy the next day, then you need to have your head examined.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
Again, you miss the point. I am not talking about producers, I am talking about distributors.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free.
Has it occured to you that DRM might not be the only factor that people consider when they buy a game, even if they are strongly interested in their rights?
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
Which is kind of the whole point of anti-trust laws.