To be fair, every place on the internet is accessible from everywhere. In that sense, there is no "here" or "there". Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses? Should it make a difference whether or not those websites were hosted inside the US/UK?
Slashdot posts a lot of these articles legitimizing the pirate way. Be careful of getting into the echo chamber, because a lot of sites won't give you the story from the other side. First of all, I can't even figure out what the article's author is talking about. There's plenty of places to get stuff off the internet via legal means. You'd think that this article was written 10 years ago - before channels started streaming their programs on the internet, before iTunes, before internet radio, before Amazon mp3 downloads and Video-On-Demand. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who pirate because they: get access to stuff they wouldn't have paid for *AND* because they get stuff for free that they would've paid for -- and free is always better than paying. To say that it's about reasonable prices and the ability to buy it on the internet seems ridiculously out of touch with the modern state of affairs. Does this guy know how much piracy there is of, say, the Humble Indie Bundle? That was easy to get on the internet and it was pay whatever you want. But, some people seem to act like "pirates pirate because they don't want to pay" is the conclusion that must be avoided at all costs, even when there's plenty of evidence.
A while back, I remember talking to one friend of mine, and I was happy that Amazon was selling last year's best-selling albums for $5 each (for a limited time). Her response? "Meh, you can get it all for free on the internet." That's right: for many people, it doesn't matter what the price is or whether or not they are available (legally) on the internet because piracy is always free. For many pirates, the internet is like the world's largest free-for-all, like someone gave them a credit card with no limit and they can run through a store and take everything they want. I'm also sensing that this guy doesn't know much about the economics of content creation. But, then, maybe he's just looking out for his own interests: he doesn't want to be in the business of cracking down on piracy and piracy costs his company nothing (in fact, he might even make money if he can charge customers money for their data-plans), so he's willing to be oblivious to the economics of content creation.
I would like to podcast my Church's services. Can't, Copyright
I would like to listen to any radio station in the world over the Internet. Can't, Copyright, Broadcast right
I would like to toss my cable subscription in favor of streaming shows. Can't, Copyright and License restrictions.
I would like to record the occasional HD broadcast (given I have to have cable). Can't, Copyright and License restrictions and broken DVR by AT&T
I would like to listen to a book read to me while I drive from my Kindle. Can't Copyright
I actually can't figure out what you're talking about. The copyright to your churches services are held by your church, and they have every right to release them in whatever format they want. (In fact, it's generally useful for churches to give away all their sermons for free and make money on donations and tithes "for God".) I don't know much about the radio-station issue, but I have far more radio stations I can listen to for free on the internet than I have time for. As far as cable-subscriptions, why not watch hulu or hulu plus or get them on Amazon or somewhere else? As far as recording HD broadcasts, I really don't know. The reason I don't know is because *I've been without a TV since 2001 and I still watch TV on the internet thanks to Hulu and streaming media off of sites like Comedy Central*. As far as your Kindle reading books, why not get them in audio format? I've listened to plenty of audio books from the library - and I don't even have to drive to the library to get them; I just download them directly from the library website at a cost of zero dollars.
Climategate doesn't change much of anything, all it did was show that climate scientists were pissed off at global-warming skeptics, and it didn't show that climate data was ever falsified or altered. I'm sure you'll find similar amounts of ire from evolutionary biologists against creationists, but it doesn't change the facts of evolution. In essence, ClimateGate was trumped up by climate-skeptics and dishonestly turned into a propaganda piece to convince the public that global warming is a big sham.
Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate."... An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a "deliberate fraud" and "the greatest deception in history." We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside" until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
As for carbon-taxes, you can still believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and disagree with the carbon-tax solution. In fact, I've seen experiment that show that, if you present people with arguments that global warming is real and carbon-tax is the solution, and then show a second group of people an argument that global warming is real and nuclear power is the solution, people are more likely to accept the idea of global warming+nuclear power solution. What this says to me is that people aren't making up their minds from the facts of global warming, but they're making decisions about the reality of global warming based on their fears of what happens if they accept it.
"In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000".
2011-2001 = 10 years
2001 < 2003
> "A related story at the Guardian suggests that governmental attempts to control the internet are spurring these activities."
I have to admit, I read that sentence in the summary and I scoffed. Then I read the article, and I still scoffed.
How about my interpretation of Loz Kaye's article: people who are deeply involved in some cause always find the reason "bad thing happened" to because of "bad thing that they don't like and have been working against". It reminded me a lot of Pat Robertson's claim that 9/11 happened because of the gays and feminists and abortionists. Uh huh. Sure it did.
Yup. People will post libertarian anti-copyright arguments to defend piracy, but those same people will dismiss anti-net-neutrality arguments written by the same libertarians. Personally, I think the libertarians have got it all wrong. I haven't read an anti-copyright argument or an anti-net-neutrality argument I actually agree with. (Just to see what they have to say, I've read partway through the article, and there are some obvious flaws.)
Yeah, because Apple wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating and promoting its iCloud service just so that they can bring the hammer down on pirates and drive everyone away to other services. That makes sense. Maybe Slashdot is getting a little paranoid and forgetting what companies actually care about (money). Seriously, how did this type of paranoia get to the front page without being flagged as "makes no economic sense". Besides, if Apple were going to do that, then why haven't they already leveraged their iTunes application to do the exact same thing?
I think his answer would be that "it's not my fault that bitcoin is used for nefarious purposes", and protest his innocence. Of course, in other cases, Amir have touted the fact that bitcoin is "outside the law" and it would allow people to get away with not paying taxes on gambling winnings or sales tax. (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1487.msg17449#msg17449)
Let's also point out this quote (by the same user on the bitcoin forum), on the usefulness of bitcoin on poker sites: "Government heavily taxes Poker sites. Decentralised networks are outside the law." (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1487.msg17449#msg17449)
First of all, if the advantage of bitcoin is to avoid paying taxes, he's making some very big enemies. Second, the US government has cracked down on decentralized networks in the past. In the 1970s, some people got the bright idea to setup barter markets - they could buy and sell things without using money, and avoid paying taxes. Surprise! The US government put some laws in place that says you have to pay taxes on bartered goods. If he think that the US government is going to allow billions of dollars of trade and avoid sales tax, he's living in a dream world. If he thinks that not paying taxes is good for society (as opposed to good for him personally), then he's living in a dream world. And, if he's touting "not paying taxes" as an advantage of bitcoin, then I think we all see where his impetus is for this virtual currency. Either Amir is an anarchist, a tea-partier, or just plain self-involved with his own personal greed, none of which makes me respect him.
Given all the attacks by Anonymous and LulzSec lately, how sure can you be that BitCoin is capable of withstanding all possible attacks against it? What if someone decides to destroy the distributed database (perhaps via a virus that spreads to all the hosts) or transfer bitcoins to different users? Should we trust that you have created a perfect security system that blocks people smarter than you from all the attacks they might imagine? And if the database were destroyed, would we all have to throw our hands up and start from scratch with zero (bitcoin) money?
Wow. So, if Bitcoin took off, he could not only be a millionaire, but he'd be a *billionaire* if the combined value of bitcoins in existence reached $10 billion.
> "I remember when my dad was going to be sent to the gulag in Siberia for a typewriter he possessed."
Really?
> "He was copying a book that the government considered illegal"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. You mean that he was going to be sent to the gulag for printing and distributing anti-communist material in communist Russia. I think you need to fix that first sentence.'
> "I do know the typewriter had the letters removed so it wasn't exactly illegal."
He was copying a book using a typewriter that didn't work?
I'm still trying to figure out what the connection between the first paragraph and the second paragraph is. Unless you're suggesting that the [communist police-thugs who don't want people to hear certain information] is equivalent to [authors who want readers to pay for the book so that they can earn a living from their work].
> "Build a better mousetrap and world will beat a path to your door."
Ironically, that statement isn't true because there's already a lot of good, cheap mousetraps available on the market. (A while back, This American Life did an short clip on building a better mousetrap - and how people keep trying to build better ones, even though there isn't really a need for better ones. "The world actually does not need a better mousetrap. The world will not beat a path to that person's door." http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/311/a-better-mousetrap )
The idea is really a good one because, as the embedded videos in the article point out, not everyone has the same needs for a flashlight. The product allows customization through your computer. I really like the idea that you can charge the light over USB and program it too.
Sounds good when you're talking in generalizations. But, more concretely, do you have specific ideas? Because, I can't think of one single reason why I'd want to use this new flashlight instead of a "dumb" LED flashlight like the one I already have (and is probably a lot less expensive). Is this just a case of nerds getting seduced by vague ideas about being able to program a flashlight, while the reality will be much, much more boring?
I think you need to go back and rethink your position.
Again, I'm not siding with them. I'm merely pointing out that the word terrorist is a very subjective one and has hardly any objective meaning. A terrorist is simply 1. Someone fighting a force much larger than themselves and thus has to fight 'dirty'. and 2. Someone who is fighting for a cause you don't believe in.
Uh, huh. [sarcasm]And "theft" is just a word conjured up by the "authorities" meant to villify the redistrubution of wealth.[/sarcasm] I still don't understand how people in 2011 don't understand the meaning of the word "terrorism". Terrorism requires killing, kidnapping, or threats against the general population - and must be directly aimed at the general civilian population (accidentally killing civilians in part of an attack against military targets doesn't count).
Saying that "terrorist" is merely "fighting dirty for something you don't believe in" already put a pretty big gap between a sign-holding protester and bomb-planting terrorist, since protesters aren't "fighting dirty". The word "fighting dirty" is also a very generous way of describing a terrorist. Creating false news stories is "fighting dirty". Blowing up an enemy's railroad lines is "fighting dirty". Using submarines to destroy military ships is "fighting dirty". But none of those things are "terrorism" (unless you're targeting civilian railroad lines with the intention of killing unarmed civilians, of course).
While you're right that authorities might try to mislabel people, that doesn't mean labels are impossible to apply to people. Second, you say "everything is relative", but it's not. If it were, then why don't you come out and say that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr are no better or worse than Nazis. If you can't say it, then you have to admit that *not* everything is relative. If you're going to insist that everything is relative, then you're going to have to throw up your hands and say, "I've been lead to believe that Ghandi and MLK are better than Nazis, but clearly, that's just my subjective viewpoint and one that is shared by many people, but we can't claim anything approaching truth. Nazis, KKK, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Hitler, Saddam, peaceful protesters, serial killers - it's all relative, we can't really say if any of them are better than any others."
The other thing that comes out of your viewpoint is this: if you're right, then why shouldn't the US simply nuke the entire Middle East? Hey, if history is written by the winners and everything is relative, then who's to say that's wrong?
Personally, I find the "everything is relative" camp to be people who are simply frustrated by the status quo and decide to stick their heads in the sand to avoid all the hard thinking stuff while lobbing some insults at the authorities. It's not a well thought out viewpoint, although people try to use that pretense.
> "Everything I've ever read about it was that students were run over by tanks, inside the square."
I don't remember the "run over by tanks" part, although I do remember a man standing in front of the tanks, not getting run over.
> "Is it morally worse to kill and eat an intelligent creature than to kill and eat an unintelligent creature? Why?"
Is that a serious question?
If it's just as bad to eat an unintelligent creature as an intelligent one, then I think I can accuse vegetarians of genocide everytime they eat yogurt or bread or drink beer (the last two are made with brewers yeast). I suppose all plants can also be considered "unintelligent creatures" as well.
I actually think he's doing something different. I've heard vegetarians say that people should only eat animals that they kill themselves -- it's a way to make people fully aware of the fact that eating meat involves the death of a living animal (rather than the normal way of having the animal killed out of sight and we just stop by the grocery store and purchase some meat nicely wrapped in plastic, or already cooked in a restaurant). The goal is to make people stop eating meat. Sounds like Mark took them up on the offer, but hasn't gone fully vegetarian.
Obviously, that phrase has led us into the 10th circle of hell known as Amerikkka! (Yeah, that was sarcasm. But it was so hard not to parody everyone else on this thread.)
> "The development of a legal online free culture is impossible in Finland if corrupt organizations like IFPI are allowed to shut down their operators."
What silliness. All that stuff can still be put online. Here's a few places: YouTube, MySpace, MegaUpload, Wordpress, Download.cnet, or one of the trackers that actually respects copyright. What in the world would make you say that "legal online free culture" is impossible without the PirateBay?
> "Well, duh. I mean, it totally turned out that way in the US and various other countries with unfettered access to TPB. Nobody ever buys music online from iTunes or Amazon."
If you look at the numbers, you'd see that music sales in the US, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, have declined to 1/3rd of what they were 10 years ago.
> "What if someone is using the pirate bay to distribute his own content?"
Use a different method. There's lots of them available on the internet. Here's a few: setup a website and put your music on there, put your music on MySpace, put your music on Facebook, put your music on Megaupload, put your music on dropbox.
> "Blocking it for the record company is just using the government and laws to prevent competition. They are losing control of the music business and they are getting scared."
No, it's blocking illegitimate competition.
> "iTunes seems to be doing just fine, even though piratebay and other illegal sites exist."
That's because many people refuse to accept piracy as a legitimate means to get entertainment. It's also worth noting that music sales in the US, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, are roughly 1/3rd what they were 10 years ago.
> "If that was true in any way, shape, form, or sexual position then Apple, Amazon, and a multitude of other legitimate services would have failed."
Indeed, because if there's one thing propping up Apple, Amazon, and other legitimate services, it's sales to Finland.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, every place on the internet is accessible from everywhere. In that sense, there is no "here" or "there". Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses? Should it make a difference whether or not those websites were hosted inside the US/UK?
Slashdot posts a lot of these articles legitimizing the pirate way. Be careful of getting into the echo chamber, because a lot of sites won't give you the story from the other side. First of all, I can't even figure out what the article's author is talking about. There's plenty of places to get stuff off the internet via legal means. You'd think that this article was written 10 years ago - before channels started streaming their programs on the internet, before iTunes, before internet radio, before Amazon mp3 downloads and Video-On-Demand. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who pirate because they: get access to stuff they wouldn't have paid for *AND* because they get stuff for free that they would've paid for -- and free is always better than paying. To say that it's about reasonable prices and the ability to buy it on the internet seems ridiculously out of touch with the modern state of affairs. Does this guy know how much piracy there is of, say, the Humble Indie Bundle? That was easy to get on the internet and it was pay whatever you want. But, some people seem to act like "pirates pirate because they don't want to pay" is the conclusion that must be avoided at all costs, even when there's plenty of evidence.
A while back, I remember talking to one friend of mine, and I was happy that Amazon was selling last year's best-selling albums for $5 each (for a limited time). Her response? "Meh, you can get it all for free on the internet." That's right: for many people, it doesn't matter what the price is or whether or not they are available (legally) on the internet because piracy is always free. For many pirates, the internet is like the world's largest free-for-all, like someone gave them a credit card with no limit and they can run through a store and take everything they want. I'm also sensing that this guy doesn't know much about the economics of content creation. But, then, maybe he's just looking out for his own interests: he doesn't want to be in the business of cracking down on piracy and piracy costs his company nothing (in fact, he might even make money if he can charge customers money for their data-plans), so he's willing to be oblivious to the economics of content creation.
I actually can't figure out what you're talking about. The copyright to your churches services are held by your church, and they have every right to release them in whatever format they want. (In fact, it's generally useful for churches to give away all their sermons for free and make money on donations and tithes "for God".) I don't know much about the radio-station issue, but I have far more radio stations I can listen to for free on the internet than I have time for. As far as cable-subscriptions, why not watch hulu or hulu plus or get them on Amazon or somewhere else? As far as recording HD broadcasts, I really don't know. The reason I don't know is because *I've been without a TV since 2001 and I still watch TV on the internet thanks to Hulu and streaming media off of sites like Comedy Central*. As far as your Kindle reading books, why not get them in audio format? I've listened to plenty of audio books from the library - and I don't even have to drive to the library to get them; I just download them directly from the library website at a cost of zero dollars.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
As for carbon-taxes, you can still believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and disagree with the carbon-tax solution. In fact, I've seen experiment that show that, if you present people with arguments that global warming is real and carbon-tax is the solution, and then show a second group of people an argument that global warming is real and nuclear power is the solution, people are more likely to accept the idea of global warming+nuclear power solution. What this says to me is that people aren't making up their minds from the facts of global warming, but they're making decisions about the reality of global warming based on their fears of what happens if they accept it.
"In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000".
2011-2001 = 10 years
2001 < 2003
> "A related story at the Guardian suggests that governmental attempts to control the internet are spurring these activities."
I have to admit, I read that sentence in the summary and I scoffed. Then I read the article, and I still scoffed.
How about my interpretation of Loz Kaye's article: people who are deeply involved in some cause always find the reason "bad thing happened" to because of "bad thing that they don't like and have been working against". It reminded me a lot of Pat Robertson's claim that 9/11 happened because of the gays and feminists and abortionists. Uh huh. Sure it did.
Yup. People will post libertarian anti-copyright arguments to defend piracy, but those same people will dismiss anti-net-neutrality arguments written by the same libertarians. Personally, I think the libertarians have got it all wrong. I haven't read an anti-copyright argument or an anti-net-neutrality argument I actually agree with. (Just to see what they have to say, I've read partway through the article, and there are some obvious flaws.)
Yeah, because Apple wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating and promoting its iCloud service just so that they can bring the hammer down on pirates and drive everyone away to other services. That makes sense. Maybe Slashdot is getting a little paranoid and forgetting what companies actually care about (money). Seriously, how did this type of paranoia get to the front page without being flagged as "makes no economic sense". Besides, if Apple were going to do that, then why haven't they already leveraged their iTunes application to do the exact same thing?
I think his answer would be that "it's not my fault that bitcoin is used for nefarious purposes", and protest his innocence. Of course, in other cases, Amir have touted the fact that bitcoin is "outside the law" and it would allow people to get away with not paying taxes on gambling winnings or sales tax. (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1487.msg17449#msg17449)
Let's also point out this quote (by the same user on the bitcoin forum), on the usefulness of bitcoin on poker sites: "Government heavily taxes Poker sites. Decentralised networks are outside the law." (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1487.msg17449#msg17449)
First of all, if the advantage of bitcoin is to avoid paying taxes, he's making some very big enemies. Second, the US government has cracked down on decentralized networks in the past. In the 1970s, some people got the bright idea to setup barter markets - they could buy and sell things without using money, and avoid paying taxes. Surprise! The US government put some laws in place that says you have to pay taxes on bartered goods. If he think that the US government is going to allow billions of dollars of trade and avoid sales tax, he's living in a dream world. If he thinks that not paying taxes is good for society (as opposed to good for him personally), then he's living in a dream world. And, if he's touting "not paying taxes" as an advantage of bitcoin, then I think we all see where his impetus is for this virtual currency. Either Amir is an anarchist, a tea-partier, or just plain self-involved with his own personal greed, none of which makes me respect him.
Given all the attacks by Anonymous and LulzSec lately, how sure can you be that BitCoin is capable of withstanding all possible attacks against it? What if someone decides to destroy the distributed database (perhaps via a virus that spreads to all the hosts) or transfer bitcoins to different users? Should we trust that you have created a perfect security system that blocks people smarter than you from all the attacks they might imagine? And if the database were destroyed, would we all have to throw our hands up and start from scratch with zero (bitcoin) money?
Wow. So, if Bitcoin took off, he could not only be a millionaire, but he'd be a *billionaire* if the combined value of bitcoins in existence reached $10 billion.
My Question: Is Slashdot was the official corporate sponsor of Bitcoin?
> "I remember when my dad was going to be sent to the gulag in Siberia for a typewriter he possessed."
Really?
> "He was copying a book that the government considered illegal"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. You mean that he was going to be sent to the gulag for printing and distributing anti-communist material in communist Russia. I think you need to fix that first sentence.'
> "I do know the typewriter had the letters removed so it wasn't exactly illegal."
He was copying a book using a typewriter that didn't work?
I'm still trying to figure out what the connection between the first paragraph and the second paragraph is. Unless you're suggesting that the [communist police-thugs who don't want people to hear certain information] is equivalent to [authors who want readers to pay for the book so that they can earn a living from their work].
> "Build a better mousetrap and world will beat a path to your door."
Ironically, that statement isn't true because there's already a lot of good, cheap mousetraps available on the market. (A while back, This American Life did an short clip on building a better mousetrap - and how people keep trying to build better ones, even though there isn't really a need for better ones. "The world actually does not need a better mousetrap. The world will not beat a path to that person's door." http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/311/a-better-mousetrap )
The idea is really a good one because, as the embedded videos in the article point out, not everyone has the same needs for a flashlight. The product allows customization through your computer. I really like the idea that you can charge the light over USB and program it too.
Sounds good when you're talking in generalizations. But, more concretely, do you have specific ideas? Because, I can't think of one single reason why I'd want to use this new flashlight instead of a "dumb" LED flashlight like the one I already have (and is probably a lot less expensive). Is this just a case of nerds getting seduced by vague ideas about being able to program a flashlight, while the reality will be much, much more boring?
Uh, huh. [sarcasm]And "theft" is just a word conjured up by the "authorities" meant to villify the redistrubution of wealth.[/sarcasm] I still don't understand how people in 2011 don't understand the meaning of the word "terrorism". Terrorism requires killing, kidnapping, or threats against the general population - and must be directly aimed at the general civilian population (accidentally killing civilians in part of an attack against military targets doesn't count).
Saying that "terrorist" is merely "fighting dirty for something you don't believe in" already put a pretty big gap between a sign-holding protester and bomb-planting terrorist, since protesters aren't "fighting dirty". The word "fighting dirty" is also a very generous way of describing a terrorist. Creating false news stories is "fighting dirty". Blowing up an enemy's railroad lines is "fighting dirty". Using submarines to destroy military ships is "fighting dirty". But none of those things are "terrorism" (unless you're targeting civilian railroad lines with the intention of killing unarmed civilians, of course).
While you're right that authorities might try to mislabel people, that doesn't mean labels are impossible to apply to people. Second, you say "everything is relative", but it's not. If it were, then why don't you come out and say that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr are no better or worse than Nazis. If you can't say it, then you have to admit that *not* everything is relative. If you're going to insist that everything is relative, then you're going to have to throw up your hands and say, "I've been lead to believe that Ghandi and MLK are better than Nazis, but clearly, that's just my subjective viewpoint and one that is shared by many people, but we can't claim anything approaching truth. Nazis, KKK, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Hitler, Saddam, peaceful protesters, serial killers - it's all relative, we can't really say if any of them are better than any others."
The other thing that comes out of your viewpoint is this: if you're right, then why shouldn't the US simply nuke the entire Middle East? Hey, if history is written by the winners and everything is relative, then who's to say that's wrong?
Personally, I find the "everything is relative" camp to be people who are simply frustrated by the status quo and decide to stick their heads in the sand to avoid all the hard thinking stuff while lobbing some insults at the authorities. It's not a well thought out viewpoint, although people try to use that pretense.
> "Everything I've ever read about it was that students were run over by tanks, inside the square."
I don't remember the "run over by tanks" part, although I do remember a man standing in front of the tanks, not getting run over.
> "Is it morally worse to kill and eat an intelligent creature than to kill and eat an unintelligent creature? Why?"
Is that a serious question?
If it's just as bad to eat an unintelligent creature as an intelligent one, then I think I can accuse vegetarians of genocide everytime they eat yogurt or bread or drink beer (the last two are made with brewers yeast). I suppose all plants can also be considered "unintelligent creatures" as well.
I actually think he's doing something different. I've heard vegetarians say that people should only eat animals that they kill themselves -- it's a way to make people fully aware of the fact that eating meat involves the death of a living animal (rather than the normal way of having the animal killed out of sight and we just stop by the grocery store and purchase some meat nicely wrapped in plastic, or already cooked in a restaurant). The goal is to make people stop eating meat. Sounds like Mark took them up on the offer, but hasn't gone fully vegetarian.
Obviously, that phrase has led us into the 10th circle of hell known as Amerikkka! (Yeah, that was sarcasm. But it was so hard not to parody everyone else on this thread.)
> "The development of a legal online free culture is impossible in Finland if corrupt organizations like IFPI are allowed to shut down their operators."
What silliness. All that stuff can still be put online. Here's a few places: YouTube, MySpace, MegaUpload, Wordpress, Download.cnet, or one of the trackers that actually respects copyright. What in the world would make you say that "legal online free culture" is impossible without the PirateBay?
> "Well, duh. I mean, it totally turned out that way in the US and various other countries with unfettered access to TPB. Nobody ever buys music online from iTunes or Amazon."
If you look at the numbers, you'd see that music sales in the US, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, have declined to 1/3rd of what they were 10 years ago.
> "What if someone is using the pirate bay to distribute his own content?"
Use a different method. There's lots of them available on the internet. Here's a few: setup a website and put your music on there, put your music on MySpace, put your music on Facebook, put your music on Megaupload, put your music on dropbox.
> "Blocking it for the record company is just using the government and laws to prevent competition. They are losing control of the music business and they are getting scared."
No, it's blocking illegitimate competition.
> "iTunes seems to be doing just fine, even though piratebay and other illegal sites exist."
That's because many people refuse to accept piracy as a legitimate means to get entertainment. It's also worth noting that music sales in the US, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, are roughly 1/3rd what they were 10 years ago.
> "If that was true in any way, shape, form, or sexual position then Apple, Amazon, and a multitude of other legitimate services would have failed."
Indeed, because if there's one thing propping up Apple, Amazon, and other legitimate services, it's sales to Finland.