I take it the anonomous parent poster has never heard of a private life, or privacy for that matter? Otherwise he would not be making such obnoxiusly stupid logical fallacies.
Unless your up to no good, whats the problem?
No, this is not the "nothing to hide argument..."
It's exactly the same, don't kid yourself. Why is it bad? Because people did not fight against being tracked, and treated like criminals who neede to watch intending for that to happen 200+ ytears later, that's why. It puts on too much un-necessary stress and tension.
The problem with the photographer analogy is this: one, you assume that small-scale, noncommercial infringement(if we are talking about that, if not disregard this post) is the factor that plays the biggest role in harming the creator, this is uncertain given the fact that there are studies that come out all the time contradicting each othetr on the impact of piracy. Secondly... use and payment, well, that would also assume all free use of work = bad, in which case I feel there can be a few exceptions that are being glossed over.
No you can't, information in of itself can't be copyrighted, only the way it is displayed is.... and fair use does allow you to use that in a certain ways that fall under fair use.
Now THAT is a potential use for this technology I can absolutely support, given the kinks are worked out to prevent accidents if things were to go afoul. ^_^
While we have an obligation to allow flourishing technology we also, IMO have a great obligation to make sure the technology is protected from tyrrany as well.
As a law abiding citizen actually having more common sense than a peanut (unlike many people in this country) I'd appreciate it if others didn't dictate what I care about... yeah there are good uses, and I definately feel that they should be used, but to allow uncontrolled implementation of this technology is where it is problematic since the chance for abuse is always there. We have an obligation, if you will, to both allow technology to flourish and prevent abuse as well.
According to your generalization, parent poster, any research would be worthless.... that is not so.
As it is, I think absolute definitive answers are impossible in regards to the GRAND scheme of things since there is a lot we do not know about the human mind, though the hyped stuff usually if always is dismantled quite effectively.
Well, I wouldn't exactly xall 70% modest. It isn't really really good, but it is definately well above 50%, which means that the road to improvement will not have as much road to cover as if the studies had results from 45 - 50% accuracy. I don't care what others think, the benefits of this technology are wonderful, but on the other hand it is inevitable that abuse will arise from this tecnology. IMO, we are morally obligated to preserve technology and advancements, but at the same time we should be morally obligated to be vigilant and bring up the ethical issues when this kind of technology has the implications that are being talked about. To do otherwise would be too risky since we can't be sure that abuse can be prevented without raising the issue.
" In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty."
And technically speaking, this is not designed to prevent theft of any kind - believing so shows you trust people who, though probobly very intelligent otherwise, make themselves sound smart by mis-stating legal law.
"The people who make Second Life remind me of the people who in school caused new and Draconian rules to be created by the administration which made life miserable for the rest of the students. "
Was it really the students that caused this, or the administration that can't punish the right people/be assed to do it?
After all these years, Slashdot is STILL worked up about the RIAA... Aren't there bigger fish to fry, or are you just that stuborn about getting your music free? And by "you", i mean all the people that try to minimize the impact their "illegal" downloading has on artists)
Clearly you yourself complain about being stuck in one spot yet your focus is on an outdated reason that takes dominance less and less as the debates and actions spread further. Nobody is arguing the things you are arguing, in fact you look as if you are trying to stir up a fierce argument by putting words and asrguments in people's mouth and adding personal attack.
It doesn't work, take your own advice and get over ti before the inevitable flamewar does it for you.
It is proper to call the act of removing money from the content owner's pocket theft.
It is also proper to distinguish between taking money away from somebody and not giving them money. Whilst both can hold the same unethical nature level, to say that they are the same, or going on when it clearly is not defies logic. The argument you presents the idea that artists/content holders should ALWAYS be aind for EVERYTINH and have a RIGHT to make money. This seems to defy real life, where your effort is rewarded, and you have a right to try to make money, with no gaurentee that it will succeed unless you make the right choices. Otherwise, we'd ALL be living well and/or wealthy, and we clearly are not all on the same page.
If you put your hand in my pocket, take money out and walk away you have committed theft. Period. Why you thought you should do this is immaterial.
You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access.
Nor is that at all relevant to your pickpocketing point at all. When you pickpocket you committed theft, material loss, PERIOD. When you have committed copyright infringement, no material loss, and no monetary loss that is real. Potential loss? Yeah, but to compare it to actuall, tangible, and KNOWN FOR FACT loss is absurd. Also, if a friend gives me his [legal] CD, I don't have to pay the artist to legally enjoy the music [first-sale], which means your argument ignores exceptions to the rule.
A real (or potentially real) problem I see with this idea is that a large number of DDR players are *ahem* stompers that stomp down on the arrow (as oppose to harder stepping, or the always favorable light stepping on the new and sensative arrow sensors), eventually(over time, or if absaolutely hard enough immediately) damaging or jamming the sensor, and damaging the arrow itself. The places that implement this with DDR need to keep a lot of pad parts and some people that know good pad maintainence around to keep up if this is a problem.
Using 'copyrighted' music and/or videos in your own personal creations to show people for fun, where no one will be making money off it is no different than copying a page from a book to use in a public venue.
Be careful with your generalizations. This is my problem with the companies and people's opinions these days on this issue, it is mislead.
Using copyrighted works in itself is only bad when you don't have permission to do so, granted a great majority of works on Youtube are like that, but that does not make generalizing right.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who sees the hypocracy in the **AAs saying they support legal uses of P2P programs, yet on sites like musicunited instead of pointing you towards legal stuff that CAN be shared like indie stuff, they tell you to remove the programs?
Slashdot Mirror
I take it the anonomous parent poster has never heard of a private life, or privacy for that matter? Otherwise he would not be making such obnoxiusly stupid logical fallacies.
The problem with the photographer analogy is this: one, you assume that small-scale, noncommercial infringement(if we are talking about that, if not disregard this post) is the factor that plays the biggest role in harming the creator, this is uncertain given the fact that there are studies that come out all the time contradicting each othetr on the impact of piracy. Secondly... use and payment, well, that would also assume all free use of work = bad, in which case I feel there can be a few exceptions that are being glossed over.
... if the xontext was actually correct, which lately it has been blown out of proportion and distorted by both sides of the piracy debate.
No you can't, information in of itself can't be copyrighted, only the way it is displayed is.... and fair use does allow you to use that in a certain ways that fall under fair use.
Now THAT is a potential use for this technology I can absolutely support, given the kinks are worked out to prevent accidents if things were to go afoul. ^_^
Surely that is sarcasm?
While we have an obligation to allow flourishing technology we also, IMO have a great obligation to make sure the technology is protected from tyrrany as well.
Doesn't affect you at all, eh? *coughbullshitcough*
So if a company wants its content on Youtube, it shouldn't be allowed to? Isn't this a double standard/contradiction of some kind?
Awww shit, it was a long day... sorry. :P
No, copyrighted and being distributed WITHOUT PERMISSION is correct. People make stuff that is copyrighted yet legally free/sharable.
As a law abiding citizen actually having more common sense than a peanut (unlike many people in this country) I'd appreciate it if others didn't dictate what I care about... yeah there are good uses, and I definately feel that they should be used, but to allow uncontrolled implementation of this technology is where it is problematic since the chance for abuse is always there. We have an obligation, if you will, to both allow technology to flourish and prevent abuse as well.
According to your generalization, parent poster, any research would be worthless.... that is not so.
As it is, I think absolute definitive answers are impossible in regards to the GRAND scheme of things since there is a lot we do not know about the human mind, though the hyped stuff usually if always is dismantled quite effectively.
Well, I wouldn't exactly xall 70% modest. It isn't really really good, but it is definately well above 50%, which means that the road to improvement will not have as much road to cover as if the studies had results from 45 - 50% accuracy. I don't care what others think, the benefits of this technology are wonderful, but on the other hand it is inevitable that abuse will arise from this tecnology. IMO, we are morally obligated to preserve technology and advancements, but at the same time we should be morally obligated to be vigilant and bring up the ethical issues when this kind of technology has the implications that are being talked about. To do otherwise would be too risky since we can't be sure that abuse can be prevented without raising the issue.
" In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty."
And technically speaking, this is not designed to prevent theft of any kind - believing so shows you trust people who, though probobly very intelligent otherwise, make themselves sound smart by mis-stating legal law.
Sop stealing? Sorry, I already don't shoplift.
Was it really the students that caused this, or the administration that can't punish the right people/be assed to do it?
It is also proper to distinguish between taking money away from somebody and not giving them money. Whilst both can hold the same unethical nature level, to say that they are the same, or going on when it clearly is not defies logic. The argument you presents the idea that artists/content holders should ALWAYS be aind for EVERYTINH and have a RIGHT to make money. This seems to defy real life, where your effort is rewarded, and you have a right to try to make money, with no gaurentee that it will succeed unless you make the right choices. Otherwise, we'd ALL be living well and/or wealthy, and we clearly are not all on the same page.
Nor is that at all relevant to your pickpocketing point at all. When you pickpocket you committed theft, material loss, PERIOD. When you have committed copyright infringement, no material loss, and no monetary loss that is real. Potential loss? Yeah, but to compare it to actuall, tangible, and KNOWN FOR FACT loss is absurd. Also, if a friend gives me his [legal] CD, I don't have to pay the artist to legally enjoy the music [first-sale], which means your argument ignores exceptions to the rule.
A real (or potentially real) problem I see with this idea is that a large number of DDR players are *ahem* stompers that stomp down on the arrow (as oppose to harder stepping, or the always favorable light stepping on the new and sensative arrow sensors), eventually(over time, or if absaolutely hard enough immediately) damaging or jamming the sensor, and damaging the arrow itself. The places that implement this with DDR need to keep a lot of pad parts and some people that know good pad maintainence around to keep up if this is a problem.
I get [b][i]mega fucking drenched[/i][/b] in sweat from playing DDR after only 1 hour.
"What you taught me was that I was less important to you than people who had been dead for five hundred years in another country."
Be careful with your generalizations. This is my problem with the companies and people's opinions these days on this issue, it is mislead.
Using copyrighted works in itself is only bad when you don't have permission to do so, granted a great majority of works on Youtube are like that, but that does not make generalizing right.
I call BS on one point - if you are sharing legal stuff, using P2P is NOT illegal.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who sees the hypocracy in the **AAs saying they support legal uses of P2P programs, yet on sites like musicunited instead of pointing you towards legal stuff that CAN be shared like indie stuff, they tell you to remove the programs?