No, copyright had nothing to do DIRECTLY with profiting, it was an incentive to create because for a limited time you had exclusive control to do whatever you wanted with it pretty much.
how that morphed into profit, vs control [and using that control to try to profit] is something I still am trying to understand.
Response: If I wanted to modify a PC, I'd modify a PC, but I'm not - I'm trying to [run custom software on, improve hardware wise, etc] [insert console name here], so the point is moot.
3. People are short on fact checking attention span: The issue is sharing copyrighted works WITHOUT PERMISSION, NOT THAT THE WORK IS COPYRIGHT Ed OR NOT you moron. If a friend of mine makes a work, copyrights it, and puts it up for people to share, since he authorized it, it is legal - even though it is copyrighted. It isn't that hard, people.
That TOS - ror rather, the clauses, have to be legal - the fact that it is an agreement that these terms are written into mean jack shit if they violate the law.
... when they stop wasting money, insising on using invasive and ineffective methods/technologies, hiring thugs, criminals, and actually respecting the rights we DO have, THEN I'll consider that - who cares if they are here to keep us safe, that is NOT some form of immunity AT ALL from criticism for fucking up.
Here come the idiots who misconstrue arguments, and misuse words to attempt to slam those they disagree with.
"... for REFUSING a body scan..."
SO FUCKING WHAT, asshole? We refuse, and oped out hoping for alternative screening that was not invasive like these pat downs are, and just as effective if not more so, and that, somehow, is a contradiction? LEARN WHAT A FUCKING CONTRADICTION IS THEN.
As the years go on, FlightGear gets better and better. I remember when it resembled, graphically, FS95 / FS98 years ago, now it looks so much more realistic, etc... if only they'd fix the damned taxiway textures so turnoffs looked right. That's one thing that never changed in all these years.
IMO, piracy may drive these new measures, but if a counteraction is too draconian, how is that the fault of anybody other than those insisting it is needed [as opposed to less draconian measures]? Shift the blame much?
A thought experiment might help clarify this.
Suppose a novelist writes a book and accidentally leaves a copy of the electronic manuscript on a public computer (or in another place where it might be accessible, though the author didn't intend it to be). Another person finds it and publishes it first -- making millions of dollars.
Is that theft?
Considering you copied a copy left behind - assuming the author copied for himself a copy of the work in question and was merely careless / didn't delete the file when he was done, I'd say no - what occurred was fraud.
Theft occurs when someone takes away something of value from someone else.
No, it occurs when somebody takes something away from somebody else - value or not.
Being physical or not to an extent does matter though, since aside from digital currency and how that operates, nonphysical mediums like MP3s, text documents, etc can be created, copied, transformed in a number of ways that physical things can NOT [yet] - hence the distinctions being IMO of course absolutely relevant.
I also don't think it's an error to think of distributing someone else's work without their permission as a kind of "theft."
IMO then the question legitimately becomes, why [if you support that assertion], or why not for somebody who does not.
Well, you're talking in a lingual non-legal sense - which when taken to be literal, IMO of course, is wrong by proof by contradiction - the meme of course is talking LEGALLY.
OF course, you operate under the faulty presumption that theft is merely "taking something without paying for it" in the simplest form, when permissions or lack thereof is the true deciding factor - same with downloading copyrighted works, it is about permissions or lack thereof, not the status alone of the work.
The problem, derpazoid, is four fold: 1. PROVING it, 1. targeting the RIGHT people, and making sure that methods are used with a far lower rate of error, 3. reimbursing the people WRONGFULLY accused and dreagged through the legal system for no reason, and 4. A LOGICAL, REASONABLE result that doesn't involve bankrupting the accused-and-actually-proven-guilty.
Yawn,.... another moronic false contradiction argument that wrongly presumes Slashdot as some sort of hive mind and not a community driven by a lot of individuals with many differing opinions.
Really, every time these discussions come up, the same arguments are made - and I keep asking if the people making said arguments have any understanding of rudimentary logic.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be under the mistaken guise that the so called "right to refuse" is actually absolute.
No, copyright had nothing to do DIRECTLY with profiting, it was an incentive to create because for a limited time you had exclusive control to do whatever you wanted with it pretty much. how that morphed into profit, vs control [and using that control to try to profit] is something I still am trying to understand.
Devil's advocate: That's what a PC is for.
Response: If I wanted to modify a PC, I'd modify a PC, but I'm not - I'm trying to [run custom software on, improve hardware wise, etc] [insert console name here], so the point is moot.
Yup, but what relevance does that last line have to do with this? Copyright infringement == copyright infringement != theft/stealing.
3. People are short on fact checking attention span: The issue is sharing copyrighted works WITHOUT PERMISSION, NOT THAT THE WORK IS COPYRIGHT Ed OR NOT you moron. If a friend of mine makes a work, copyrights it, and puts it up for people to share, since he authorized it, it is legal - even though it is copyrighted. It isn't that hard, people.
And I can summarize my rebuttal in a few more: "his post ignores the concept of punishment fitting the crime"
It was, but they weren't told to stop them, now were they? It was the FAA that let the private security let them carry boxcutters, right?
Facts matter.
Odd analogy sicne the TSA is not any form of law enforcement, nor an org. of policemen or deputy sheriffs.
I thought the time shifting issue's more substantial cases - like Betamax - had to do with non-software media, but I could be wrong
That TOS - ror rather, the clauses, have to be legal - the fact that it is an agreement that these terms are written into mean jack shit if they violate the law.
I see your red herring, and call you out.
... when they stop wasting money, insising on using invasive and ineffective methods/technologies, hiring thugs, criminals, and actually respecting the rights we DO have, THEN I'll consider that - who cares if they are here to keep us safe, that is NOT some form of immunity AT ALL from criticism for fucking up.
Here come the idiots who misconstrue arguments, and misuse words to attempt to slam those they disagree with.
"... for REFUSING a body scan..."
SO FUCKING WHAT, asshole? We refuse, and oped out hoping for alternative screening that was not invasive like these pat downs are, and just as effective if not more so, and that, somehow, is a contradiction? LEARN WHAT A FUCKING CONTRADICTION IS THEN.
... Just because the legal owner authorized it doesn't mean the laws don't apply or that they didn't break them in authorizing it.
As the years go on, FlightGear gets better and better. I remember when it resembled, graphically, FS95 / FS98 years ago, now it looks so much more realistic, etc... if only they'd fix the damned taxiway textures so turnoffs looked right. That's one thing that never changed in all these years.
Your logic sucks.
IMO, piracy may drive these new measures, but if a counteraction is too draconian, how is that the fault of anybody other than those insisting it is needed [as opposed to less draconian measures]? Shift the blame much?
A thought experiment might help clarify this. Suppose a novelist writes a book and accidentally leaves a copy of the electronic manuscript on a public computer (or in another place where it might be accessible, though the author didn't intend it to be). Another person finds it and publishes it first -- making millions of dollars. Is that theft?
Considering you copied a copy left behind - assuming the author copied for himself a copy of the work in question and was merely careless / didn't delete the file when he was done, I'd say no - what occurred was fraud.
Theft occurs when someone takes away something of value from someone else.
No, it occurs when somebody takes something away from somebody else - value or not.
Being physical or not to an extent does matter though, since aside from digital currency and how that operates, nonphysical mediums like MP3s, text documents, etc can be created, copied, transformed in a number of ways that physical things can NOT [yet] - hence the distinctions being IMO of course absolutely relevant.
I also don't think it's an error to think of distributing someone else's work without their permission as a kind of "theft."
IMO then the question legitimately becomes, why [if you support that assertion], or why not for somebody who does not.
[citations needed, herr anonymous coward]
Well, you're talking in a lingual non-legal sense - which when taken to be literal, IMO of course, is wrong by proof by contradiction - the meme of course is talking LEGALLY.
OF course, you operate under the faulty presumption that theft is merely "taking something without paying for it" in the simplest form, when permissions or lack thereof is the true deciding factor - same with downloading copyrighted works, it is about permissions or lack thereof, not the status alone of the work.
The problem, derpazoid, is four fold: 1. PROVING it, 1. targeting the RIGHT people, and making sure that methods are used with a far lower rate of error, 3. reimbursing the people WRONGFULLY accused and dreagged through the legal system for no reason, and 4. A LOGICAL, REASONABLE result that doesn't involve bankrupting the accused-and-actually-proven-guilty.
That's NOT what's being argued, did you actually RTFA carefully?
Do you honestly believe the bullshit you just spewed? *grabs nose plugs*
Somehow I think you missed the point entirely with that red herring. Just a gut feeling.
Yawn,.... another moronic false contradiction argument that wrongly presumes Slashdot as some sort of hive mind and not a community driven by a lot of individuals with many differing opinions.
Really, every time these discussions come up, the same arguments are made - and I keep asking if the people making said arguments have any understanding of rudimentary logic.