...who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?
And why should we just assume that they will?
That same sort of slippery-slope argument could be used to ban any number of things. Who guarantees that someone buying a hammer isn't going to use it to murder their neighbor tomorrow? Who guarantees that someone buying a condom isn't going to go out and rape some woman tomorrow?
Why should an act which victimizes no one be banned because the person just might do something more sinister tomorrow?
If you get screwed over by DRM and have the ability to unscrew yourself over (via cracking the game yourself), is that unethical?
Is it any more unethical to have someone else crack the game for you in order to do the same thing (this is assuming you own a protected copy of the game)?
I don't know what games you're talking about, but it's not hard to find most PC games that you would want to play. Things like digital download make this even easier.
Name one game that is "no longer for sale" made within the last ten years.
The RED cameras with 261MP appear to have about an order of magnitude greater width than either of those.
However, I have no real idea what I'm talking about.
Just because one opposes the RIAA does not mean that one advocates all of the things that the RIAA opposes.
The issue here is not that the RIAA wants people to pay for its music; it's that the RIAA is using absurd definitions, underhanded tactics and exaggerations to take money which they don't deserve.
The fact that one side breaks the law does not make it justified for the other side to ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
...who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?
And why should we just assume that they will?
That same sort of slippery-slope argument could be used to ban any number of things. Who guarantees that someone buying a hammer isn't going to use it to murder their neighbor tomorrow? Who guarantees that someone buying a condom isn't going to go out and rape some woman tomorrow?
Why should an act which victimizes no one be banned because the person just might do something more sinister tomorrow?
If you want an in-game browser with tabs, Xfire has it (granted it's technically just displaying pages in an instance of IE, but whatever).
If you get screwed over by DRM and have the ability to unscrew yourself over (via cracking the game yourself), is that unethical?
Is it any more unethical to have someone else crack the game for you in order to do the same thing (this is assuming you own a protected copy of the game)?
I don't know what games you're talking about, but it's not hard to find most PC games that you would want to play. Things like digital download make this even easier.
Name one game that is "no longer for sale" made within the last ten years.
How would running software on non-approved hardware constitute copying said software?
Wouldn't "copy protection" imply that it is actually preventing the software from being copied?
When did "copy protection" come to envelop all methods of limiting what one can do with software which one legally purchases?
You seem a little biased on the matter. ;)
o.o I thought that was fairly obvious.
That last one seems like a problem to me.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, what then would you say about miscarriage? Would that be akin to unintentional manslaughter?
Holographic discs are already in development.
On someone else's computer?
Nobody had to buy the tea.
Try deer slugs.
The RED cameras with 261MP appear to have about an order of magnitude greater width than either of those. However, I have no real idea what I'm talking about.
Download a large torrent with lots of traffic?
What about the 5GB games people buy from Steam and need to download to their computer? Your solution fails when it is put into practice.
What about those of us who actually have to pay for our on-campus internet access?
+1 Correct Grammar Mod parent up for proper use of disc/disk.
Whoops Mis-moderated.
"also just a theory" What do you mean? It will always be "just a theory."
I wish I had mod points for you...
No, those were Photon Torpedoes.
It was offline four minutes before the official time hit.
Just because one opposes the RIAA does not mean that one advocates all of the things that the RIAA opposes. The issue here is not that the RIAA wants people to pay for its music; it's that the RIAA is using absurd definitions, underhanded tactics and exaggerations to take money which they don't deserve. The fact that one side breaks the law does not make it justified for the other side to ignore it.
I agree.