You are an asshole with this position. Saying that because he's not a recognized name, he deserves to have his work distributed without his consent, and without deriving revenue from it is completely asinine.
Fuck your "market worth". You honestly don't think that the availability of free/cheap pirated copies of the work isn't going to distort the market? If not, you are an even bigger idiot than was previously thought.
By "let the market work", you mean that I should spend time, money and energy to produce something, and then let someone else copy it and sell it for a much lower price, right? Because that's what you're advocating.
of-course individual liberty does not include harming other individuals, but this function of protecting individuals against other individuals must not be power given to government.
No. You've just said that everything should be survival of the strongest. If someone with more guns and muscle comes up to me and takes my car, that should be his right according to you.
Government exists to protect our rights against other citizens. Otherwise, there is absolutely no purpose in government.
And to think you're actually trying to tell other people to think?
Content gets produced. If somebody wants to pay for its consumption, they will pay for it. If they don't, they won't.
The problem is, many people seem to think that, even if they don't want to pay for it, they should still be entitled for the content. If you're not willing to pay what the author is asking, then you should do without. Plain and simple.
Who's to say they don't? There's more ways to be paid than with money. However, it should be the option of the person doing the work how they get paid.
There's absolutely NOTHING in SOPA and PIPA (or the current DMCA, for that matter), which requires someone making an accusation to actually prove they hold the copyright on the item. A competitor to his could easily issue takedowns, and now the material has to be off the web.
Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.
That has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone say. Who the fuck else is there to protect your liberties and freedoms against if not other civilians? Are you saying the only reason government exists is to protect you from itself?
That line of thinking is absolutely pants on head retarded.
No, he's not. He's criticizing the people of that district for making their choice on who to represent them. Again, who is he to say that the people of the 21st district of Texas cannot choose the person they feel best represents them in Congress?
It's a right, written in the Constitution, to object to the representatives and act to remove them if he/she so chooses, regardless of district.
Citation, please. Especially the "regardless of district" part.
While I agree with that, those who are denying climate change are not actually doing that. They're mainly saying, "We choose to ignore that it is happening because we stand to lose lots of money if it's true."
No, that's just stupid. Yes, if you produce something, and someone else decides to use it, then if you desire to get paid, then you should get paid for it. No one should be able to use something for free just because they don't want to pay for it. Don't feel the work is worth what the author is charging for it? Go without. It's that simple.
No, you are wrong. Saying "no business should be able to claim any protection from government, and when it happens it is wrong." is absolutely stupid. You're basically saying that no business should enjoy police protection. That if someone breaks into a store and steals merchandise, that store should not be able to call the cops. This position is entirely asinine.
Further, your bullshit "property rights" comment? You would have no "property rights" if it wasn't for government enforcing them.
No, I'm pretty sure you're absolutely full of shit. One can completely be in favor of copyright (maybe feeling that current copyright terms are too long), and still be anti SOPA. It's not hypocritical at all.
Of course, nobody would have shown any sympathy for your inability to sell "pirate" CDs. Yet we are expected to feel sympathy for the recording studios.
Part of that is he's not doing any work. The artists and engineers that actually work on the CDs are.
The thing with the "States Rights" argument is that most people take it way too far, and even decide that people's Civil Rights should be left up to the states. And we all know what kind of a record the states have on protecting Civil Rights.
I hate piracy too. I feel that those who pirate are simply assholes who want (nay, demand) access to other people's hard work for free. However, shit like SOPA/PIPA is NOT the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an asshole with this position. Saying that because he's not a recognized name, he deserves to have his work distributed without his consent, and without deriving revenue from it is completely asinine.
Fuck your "market worth". You honestly don't think that the availability of free/cheap pirated copies of the work isn't going to distort the market? If not, you are an even bigger idiot than was previously thought.
Let market work
By "let the market work", you mean that I should spend time, money and energy to produce something, and then let someone else copy it and sell it for a much lower price, right? Because that's what you're advocating.
Nope. One can believe in copyright, but oppose draconian measures like SOPA.
There are plenty of companies specialising in private security, people have security systems installed in their homes as an example.
So only the rich should have property rights then, is what you're saying.
of-course individual liberty does not include harming other individuals, but this function of protecting individuals against other individuals must not be power given to government.
No. You've just said that everything should be survival of the strongest. If someone with more guns and muscle comes up to me and takes my car, that should be his right according to you.
Government exists to protect our rights against other citizens. Otherwise, there is absolutely no purpose in government.
And to think you're actually trying to tell other people to think?
All governments are automatically evil
No, they're not. And it's bullshit like this which is why no one really takes libertarianism seriously.
Content gets produced. If somebody wants to pay for its consumption, they will pay for it. If they don't, they won't.
The problem is, many people seem to think that, even if they don't want to pay for it, they should still be entitled for the content. If you're not willing to pay what the author is asking, then you should do without. Plain and simple.
Then housewives should be getting salaries
Who's to say they don't? There's more ways to be paid than with money. However, it should be the option of the person doing the work how they get paid.
There's absolutely NOTHING in SOPA and PIPA (or the current DMCA, for that matter), which requires someone making an accusation to actually prove they hold the copyright on the item. A competitor to his could easily issue takedowns, and now the material has to be off the web.
Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.
That has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone say. Who the fuck else is there to protect your liberties and freedoms against if not other civilians? Are you saying the only reason government exists is to protect you from itself?
That line of thinking is absolutely pants on head retarded.
No, he's not. He's criticizing the people of that district for making their choice on who to represent them. Again, who is he to say that the people of the 21st district of Texas cannot choose the person they feel best represents them in Congress?
It's a right, written in the Constitution, to object to the representatives and act to remove them if he/she so chooses, regardless of district.
Citation, please. Especially the "regardless of district" part.
Potential energy is when you hold a can over your foot. That turns to kinetic energy when you drop it.
While I agree with that, those who are denying climate change are not actually doing that. They're mainly saying, "We choose to ignore that it is happening because we stand to lose lots of money if it's true."
Reddit is already dark today. I need something to occupy my time at work.
No, that's just stupid. Yes, if you produce something, and someone else decides to use it, then if you desire to get paid, then you should get paid for it. No one should be able to use something for free just because they don't want to pay for it. Don't feel the work is worth what the author is charging for it? Go without. It's that simple.
No, you are wrong. Saying "no business should be able to claim any protection from government, and when it happens it is wrong." is absolutely stupid. You're basically saying that no business should enjoy police protection. That if someone breaks into a store and steals merchandise, that store should not be able to call the cops. This position is entirely asinine.
Further, your bullshit "property rights" comment? You would have no "property rights" if it wasn't for government enforcing them.
You're an idiot. Restaurant owners DO have government standing on their side. If you dine and dash, they can and will call the cops on you.
Your Louis C.K. example doesn't show anything; I'm sure he still enjoys copyright on his performance.
No, I'm pretty sure you're absolutely full of shit. One can completely be in favor of copyright (maybe feeling that current copyright terms are too long), and still be anti SOPA. It's not hypocritical at all.
Of course, nobody would have shown any sympathy for your inability to sell "pirate" CDs. Yet we are expected to feel sympathy for the recording studios.
Part of that is he's not doing any work. The artists and engineers that actually work on the CDs are.
The thing with the "States Rights" argument is that most people take it way too far, and even decide that people's Civil Rights should be left up to the states. And we all know what kind of a record the states have on protecting Civil Rights.
And most of those "average voters" don't vote in primaries. Those who care do. So make sure these assholes have a strong primary challenge.
they'll (aided by decades of gerrymandering) send the same rascals right back to Capitol Hill.
You don't suppose that's in the least bit helped by the fact that most people feel that their representation is actually doing a good job for them?
I hate piracy too. I feel that those who pirate are simply assholes who want (nay, demand) access to other people's hard work for free. However, shit like SOPA/PIPA is NOT the answer.
well there are plenty of other people doing that, and it's obviously useless.
Considering Cantor had SOPA shelved, it's not entirely useless.
You know what is useless? Your defeatist attitude.
Bing?