That poll I find a little troublesom, and for one reason:
Forgiving (by law) those who get even (just fists, no weapons) at bullies
School educators didn't ever mention this, but self defense is in most states and to some degree already not obnly forgivible, but allowed under law. Parents who have kids (who were) were being bullied and kicked their ass have gotten the kid out of trouble by challenging the punishment under law, and I think more people should do this. Self defense if done properly and only when and to the extent nessecary should never be punishable - it is not natural to want to qimper in fear and try to negotiate with a bully as those "educators" would want yourto believe and as soon as a kid goes oun into the real world, he/she will learn that much of that stuff they taught you in school is a load of bullshit.
But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.
Bullshit!
You were modded down because your posts (especially the first one on this page) consisted of nothing but industry lies, FUD, and unrealistic senarios that have been dispouted and disproven. Actually bring a logical and well presented argument to the table, no matter what the position, and I am sure that there will be kind moderators to mod you up accordingly. ^_^
Morally... that is something called an opinion. Yes people can think it isn't equatable to theft or can there fore morally, but some of the people on both sides are so damn dogmatic about it that they forget that it is their opinion and not everybody feels (IMO shouldn't be forced to either) that way.
Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.
Maybe not to you morally and ethically, but we are talking legalities here, and legally and logically speaking, there are numerous factors that nullify the exact parrallel of theft and copyright infringement beyond morals and ethics.
If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.
That's one hell of an if there bud... not everybody in the world owns a computer... not everybody who owns a computer is smart enugh to know how to pirate, and not everybody who has a computer - who does or does not know how to use it to its fullest extent - want to or will pirate, so this little conspiracy thought of the industry - that this might happen - should already be extinguished due to this fact... considering the billions of people on the earth, I seriously doubt this idea will ever happen,
But I've never felt the need to call someone on the whole "Copyright Infringement isn't theft!" Since both boil down to "Taking something that doesn't belong to you", why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?
Because we are talking legalities and illegalities, and when we do talk about things in such sense, specifics do matter. Call it splitting hairs if you wish, but in fact (since we are talking about legalities) your definition is pretty broad in the scope of the argument... you don't "own" the air, water from that nearby stream, or that independent artist's song you downloaded, but you aren't going to be accused for theft when it can't be done, right?,/P>
In legalities and illegalities, specifics very much matter, and in this case, we are solely talking about copyright infringement, not theft. Moralities and ethics - that is a larger issue in itself on topics like this, which is why here I think is where the broadness should remain.
Well, this is rejected by many becuase when you really think about it, the concept of "stealing an idea" is bullshit on the basis that an idea is neither your, nor can only be created by entity. How do you explain two different people coming up with an idea, the same idea on their own independently?
where it stated that using Bittorrent to download copyrighted material is theft.
Of course this is complete bullshit in a factual sense... first of all, downloading copyrighted works without permission is what s illegal and punishable, otherwise there would be a hell of a lot of legally downloadable/sharable copyrighted works that you could not download, and second of all, we are talking about copyrights(Hence why the term copyrighted is used) and theft really, from a factual point does not apply. Morals... that is an entirely different point alltogether, but it is unclear whether or not this was what was being addressed, and even if it was is a matter of opinion, and not applicable to everyone since not everyone feels it is theft. I should not need a disclaimer for my post since only trolls and completely moronic assholes will take this to believe I am trying to justify copyright infringement, when this is far from the truth.
Re:Irresponsible parents
on
Flashback NES
·
· Score: 1
Because you never read for enjoyment, or play silly games like chess or scrabble or whatever, right? All you do ever is work and masturbate?
No, I read, play scrabble, chess, work, AND masterbate... how dfo you like them apples?
/end semi serious humor
On a serious note though, I do get exercise, AND play video games... its called working with a fitness trainer, and playing DDR. ^_^
And how did I say anything about justifying copyright infringement in that post? And while we are using retorhical questions, how does mis-naming crimes solve the problem either? How does making a (false) assumption when reading a post and replying based on that help either? Why am I wasting my time?
Of course, at the risk of throwing this discussion, the artists should realize that the indusrtry they are working under can be considered a contributing reaon as to why they make so little.
I guess the claims of piracy really hurting sales and technological progress really is only true when you factor in the senseless post-release/no-release fear.
Well, DRM is a great tool to keep people who are not paying for software, for music, for video, for books off those materials.
It's called a crack, if you didn't get the memo. ^_^ GOOGLE is all somebody would need to crack a demo version into a full version, and comes in handy if you lost a serial number to a copy of software you bought a license to (later losing it to a hard drive crash).
And surely you mean media that is supposed to be paid for outside of being given a legal CD from your friend because he/she is tired of it, or other fair-use/first sale related means, right?
Now if the artist IS the copyright holder AND he allows you to download his/her MP3s, then it is not a crime, that that is not what we are talking about here now, is it?
Well, it is kind of hard to tell with generalizations and such... in a debate where many factors come into play, specifics do matter.
"'I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?'"
You may think you have nothing to hide since you are doing nothign wrong... until you realize that police officials may be able to watch you masterbate in bed.
downloading MP3's - illegal and immoral, you should be persecuted to the full extent that the law requires for copyright infringement.
Hmmm... so downloading MP3s where the artist gives permission to do so is illegal and immoral?
Only according to RIAA propaganda prehaps, but MP3 isn't inherently illegal as it is just a file format, downloading mp3s where you don't have permission to do so (copyright infringement) is illegal. There is no reason that you should be prosecuted under a law you didn't break for downloading legal music in an MP3 format.
In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't.
But that isn't the definition of stealing, not as the dictionary puts it, not as the law says it is, not as kids are tought as... kids for one reason... it si TOO SIMPLISTIC... using your argument people can call everything under the sun stealing, which is why this simply will not do.
I think plagiarism is more like lying than stealing (taking credit for others work), but the main point is the same.
But taking credit for others work isn't stealing, and why I HATE when plagiarism is taught like this. Plagiarism is FRAUD. Nothing more, nothing less. Severe, yes, but only fraud because it fits the definition perfectly whereas "stealing" it is obviously manipulated to fit in and still doesn't sound right.
I see, though I disagree on the basis that we don't know (do we? I am slow on curent events) whether it will affect us to go to the past or not just yet... you still are denying something doesn't exist on an unproven risk.
This is a tired argument that can't be simply answered with a "because they don't exist".... there are a large number of possibilities, many falling into the disgusing category.
Yeah, if only more places stood up for one's right to download massive amounts of stuff for free, without the owner's permission, and...
...you should have stopped there, since that is it... "not paying for it" is just an excuse to lash out at all music downloading weith a broad brush, when really it is whether you have permission (gained through payment some, or often times) or not that matters.
Parents should teach their children that hurting others is bad...
Problem with this is that such education goes to the point where parents tell their kids that it is wrog to defend yourself through physical means when absolutely nessecary(ONLY) even though the law may be different on that. A balance is what we need in this case, do not start fights, but when you have to defend yourself, defend yourself well.
Slashdot Mirror
That poll I find a little troublesom, and for one reason:
School educators didn't ever mention this, but self defense is in most states and to some degree already not obnly forgivible, but allowed under law. Parents who have kids (who were) were being bullied and kicked their ass have gotten the kid out of trouble by challenging the punishment under law, and I think more people should do this. Self defense if done properly and only when and to the extent nessecary should never be punishable - it is not natural to want to qimper in fear and try to negotiate with a bully as those "educators" would want yourto believe and as soon as a kid goes oun into the real world, he/she will learn that much of that stuff they taught you in school is a load of bullshit.
Bullshit!
You were modded down because your posts (especially the first one on this page) consisted of nothing but industry lies, FUD, and unrealistic senarios that have been dispouted and disproven. Actually bring a logical and well presented argument to the table, no matter what the position, and I am sure that there will be kind moderators to mod you up accordingly. ^_^
Morally... that is something called an opinion. Yes people can think it isn't equatable to theft or can there fore morally, but some of the people on both sides are so damn dogmatic about it that they forget that it is their opinion and not everybody feels (IMO shouldn't be forced to either) that way.
Maybe not to you morally and ethically, but we are talking legalities here, and legally and logically speaking, there are numerous factors that nullify the exact parrallel of theft and copyright infringement beyond morals and ethics.
That's one hell of an if there bud... not everybody in the world owns a computer... not everybody who owns a computer is smart enugh to know how to pirate, and not everybody who has a computer - who does or does not know how to use it to its fullest extent - want to or will pirate, so this little conspiracy thought of the industry - that this might happen - should already be extinguished due to this fact... considering the billions of people on the earth, I seriously doubt this idea will ever happen,
Because we are talking legalities and illegalities, and when we do talk about things in such sense, specifics do matter. Call it splitting hairs if you wish, but in fact (since we are talking about legalities) your definition is pretty broad in the scope of the argument... you don't "own" the air, water from that nearby stream, or that independent artist's song you downloaded, but you aren't going to be accused for theft when it can't be done, right?,/P>
In legalities and illegalities, specifics very much matter, and in this case, we are solely talking about copyright infringement, not theft. Moralities and ethics - that is a larger issue in itself on topics like this, which is why here I think is where the broadness should remain.
Well, this is rejected by many becuase when you really think about it, the concept of "stealing an idea" is bullshit on the basis that an idea is neither your, nor can only be created by entity. How do you explain two different people coming up with an idea, the same idea on their own independently?
Says the AC that pulls unbackable statements and statistics out of the ass like the rest of the ACs.
No, I read, play scrabble, chess, work, AND masterbate... how dfo you like them apples?
/end semi serious humor
On a serious note though, I do get exercise, AND play video games... its called working with a fitness trainer, and playing DDR. ^_^
And how did I say anything about justifying copyright infringement in that post? And while we are using retorhical questions, how does mis-naming crimes solve the problem either? How does making a (false) assumption when reading a post and replying based on that help either? Why am I wasting my time?
Of course, at the risk of throwing this discussion, the artists should realize that the indusrtry they are working under can be considered a contributing reaon as to why they make so little.
I guess the claims of piracy really hurting sales and technological progress really is only true when you factor in the senseless post-release/no-release fear.
It's called a crack, if you didn't get the memo. ^_^ GOOGLE is all somebody would need to crack a demo version into a full version, and comes in handy if you lost a serial number to a copy of software you bought a license to (later losing it to a hard drive crash).
And surely you mean media that is supposed to be paid for outside of being given a legal CD from your friend because he/she is tired of it, or other fair-use/first sale related means, right?
Well, it is kind of hard to tell with generalizations and such... in a debate where many factors come into play, specifics do matter.
You may think you have nothing to hide since you are doing nothign wrong... until you realize that police officials may be able to watch you masterbate in bed.
Hmmm... so downloading MP3s where the artist gives permission to do so is illegal and immoral?
Only according to RIAA propaganda prehaps, but MP3 isn't inherently illegal as it is just a file format, downloading mp3s where you don't have permission to do so (copyright infringement) is illegal. There is no reason that you should be prosecuted under a law you didn't break for downloading legal music in an MP3 format.
My bad... although I could also be aiming that at everybody else too. ^_^
FYI: They still are selling these infected CDs according to various sightings.
But that isn't the definition of stealing, not as the dictionary puts it, not as the law says it is, not as kids are tought as... kids for one reason... it si TOO SIMPLISTIC... using your argument people can call everything under the sun stealing, which is why this simply will not do.
But taking credit for others work isn't stealing, and why I HATE when plagiarism is taught like this. Plagiarism is FRAUD. Nothing more, nothing less. Severe, yes, but only fraud because it fits the definition perfectly whereas "stealing" it is obviously manipulated to fit in and still doesn't sound right.
I see, though I disagree on the basis that we don't know (do we? I am slow on curent events) whether it will affect us to go to the past or not just yet... you still are denying something doesn't exist on an unproven risk.
This is a tired argument that can't be simply answered with a "because they don't exist".... there are a large number of possibilities, many falling into the disgusing category.
...you should have stopped there, since that is it... "not paying for it" is just an excuse to lash out at all music downloading weith a broad brush, when really it is whether you have permission (gained through payment some, or often times) or not that matters.
It's not the ESRB's fault that people outside of their offices are ignoring the rating... is it? Yes? No? Depends?
Problem with this is that such education goes to the point where parents tell their kids that it is wrog to defend yourself through physical means when absolutely nessecary(ONLY) even though the law may be different on that. A balance is what we need in this case, do not start fights, but when you have to defend yourself, defend yourself well.