No, it's you who can't stick to the topic. Earlier it was P2P & the RIAA, now you're trying to revise what you meant in previous messages.
It was meant as a comparison, meant to explain and share my outrage, not obfuscate it.
Look back up and you'll see that I never called you anything like a "lobotomized moron" and have only responded in kind to your insulting comments... When you get to my first reply to you, you'll see that you took offense to something I never said.
You're right. I did take offence to something you never said. I took offence to something the OP said, and I never meant to tar you with the same brush. I was merely (again) trying to explain my outrage. First, some guy calls some people I happen to be close to "lobotomised morons", then another guy associates their moral code with a dictator (i.e. you), and I get pissed. If you weren't doing that (you haven't exactly denied it yet), and you can provide me an explanation of what you were saying, then I apologise for initiating this whole mud-fight. If you were saying that all along, then, well, perhaps we should agree to disagree. I've spelled out my opinion as clearly as I can, and aside from coming up with fresh insults, I think I'd just be repeating myself.
(I feel obliged to ask the same question whenever this point is brought up)
the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us.
Why? What's the point in trying to expand powers subversively, when election terms are of limited length, it doesn't produce a bigger retirement fund, and it's more difficult, costly, and risky than just electioneering, and giving the people what they want? Could it be that the Federal Government is at least trying to maintain an illusion of security, if not the real thing, because that's what people want?
Oh, JOY! The old "de-scope in order to declare [re-defined] success" gimmick. If it works, use it, eh? If it's more cliché than the 419 e-mail scam, but continues to be an effective con, so much the better. At a dime a dozen you're overpriced.
That's no excuse, no con, it's an explanation. You're obviously far too much of a self-important prick to see that. Even if it were, it's dazzlingly unique and original compared with the old "I'm right, but won't present an argument" con.
Bullshit.
Yup, that's so much clearer. Here was me thinking that you were obfuscating your argument, but of course here you come in and prove me wrong. What? Sarcasm is also not very original? That's not technically sarcasm, since you have just summed up your entire argument.
Because I am being clear, you guess what is not only not implied, but is contrary to the text I have typed, in a desperate bid to re-claim your figleaf.
OK then, let's look at your text:
The verified historical facts are that Christianity was made the official religion of a military empire, by one of its most notoriously cruel rulers. When you judge Christianity only by verifiable facts it doesn't look good at all.
OK, the second statement and the lack of any other evidence made available, I can only assume the first statement was supposed to serve as an example of a verifiable fact that makes Christianity look bad. That sounds wrong to me, because a religion is ideally measured by its message, rather than people who adopt it and exploit it for power. So many useful things can be exploited for power. It makes little sense to judge something primarily on its abuses.
I'm sorry, but I can't make my point any plainer than that. I think that if you could make a cogent argument, you would, instead of just sending out ad-hominem jabs from the safety of your intellectual cocoon. Until then, I'm afraid I agree that we are different leagues, in the same way that kids throwing stones from around corners and out of sight are in a different league from the US army.
I'm not trying to be subtle. Since you aren't exactly being clear, I'm forced to guess at why a bad leader who happened to be Christian makes you offended by Christianity, assuming I'm even in the same ballpark here. If it's incorrect, why don't you just correct me, instead of storming off? Oh that's right, it would mean that you'd have to have your opinions challenged, and you might have to *gasp* learn something. You've successfully attacked me from the shadows this whole time, and now that I actually reach into the shadows and look for your argument, you pick it up and take it home.
As for my Nick, the flamebait tag belongs to you, or at least the OP. Every time an intolerant asshole calls religious people "lobotomized morons", or associates their moral code with a dictator, it's highly offensive to them, and to me, since you are badmouthing some of my friends and family. I also find what I can only assume is your specious reasoning offensive, since it degrades my species' reputation.
One reason, is that leads to privacy invasion since you have to monitor all communication of private citizens to make sure that they aren't sending copyright information.
That's not true. We don't need total surveillance to monitor You can selectively monitor piracy hotspots, like P2P networks, or illegal websites (think a US version of allofmp3.com, or something akin to that). If people want privacy, it would encourage them to find a network that successfully discourages piracy, or just to stop using the P2P networks altogether if they are inevitably abused. I'm sorry, but the right for all of us to have our culture trumps the potential for slight privacy invasion of select individuals on select networks. If that's still too much though, you can always make copyright infringement a criminal issue, hand all enforcement over to the government, and make them get a warrant before monitoring suspected pirates.
There are also economical issues regarding inefficencym as copyright is a limitation on the free market of distribution.
Yes, that's the point of copyright, but that doesn't make it a problem.
There are other issues also, such as new business models that copyright laws prevent.
Like what? Any artist may release their works directly into the the public domain, as if copyright never existed. Copyright provides all the same options, but more, which enables all the same distribution methods, but more.
Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the pirate party did a presentation at google about some of what I said above, that was filmed.
Ah yes, a man of extremes and absolutes. He can't quite seem to distinguish between the entertainment industry and copyright, nor can he distinguish between the appropriate monitoring of illegal activity and total surveillance. He's the kind of guy who deserves to live in a society of total surveillance just so he can get some perspective about what he's protesting about. He's the kind of guy who thinks corporate copyright holders care more about killing freedom than they do about increasing profit margins (they're corporations, not villains out of a B-grade novel). He's the kind of guy who likes to dictate to the rest of the world to do what he wants, and gloss over the consequences of doing so. As you can probably see, I have little respect for the guy.
While I personally agree with you, the situation isn't that simple. What do we do about the people who have the inclination (not the strong will, but just an inclination) to lose their temper and use any skills they acquire? I know, it's not our responsibility to keep them in the dark, but violent video games make those skills so easy and ready to learn, and a person doesn't need to be seeking out that kind of info in order to get it. It's especially worrisome in children, who may not realise (often due to negligent parenting) that such behaviour is bad. We can blame those parents as much as we want, but after a tragedy, the knee-jerkers aren't going to be too reasonable.
I've noticed this a lot lately, any government agency, lobbyist group, or any group that is supposed to be fighting crime views every single person in the world as criminals.
Countries actually do take actions against countries like that if a local industry is threatened. They impose trade tariffs to balance out the difference, so as to encourage back the local industry and help the economy. However, it's been shown time and again that free trade works even better. As for Linus and Stallman, that would be illegal.
Copyright violations is a problem that affects a group of companies and an industry.
It primarily affects a group of corporations and all the commercial indie artists out there, which then affects their customers, which covers an overwhelming majority of people. Plus, like with the foreign competition, the economic benefits of preventing the self-destruction of a profitable local industry affect everyone through quality of life benefits.
Why should we be forced to collectively pay for their outdated business model/practices?
Hopefully, if there's any need to use this proposed law, funding cuts will make up for money spent on enforcement.
I also have never been satisfactorily explained why the model is outdated. The model is created on copyright law, which is still very current. Copyright law was created to avert the inevitable cultural disaster that came with increased copying and communication potential. The need for copyright law has significantly grown with the internet and P2P. If anything, copyright law and the business model based upon it are less outdated than ever.
I've noticed this a lot lately, any government agency, lobbyist group, or any group that is supposed to be fighting crime views every single person in the world as criminals.
Not quite. The idea is to curtail the rights that we don't use much in order for increased security. In the case of the government, it's at least directly for our own protection. No-one actually believes that everyone on Earth is a terrorist. OTOH, I can imagine some deranged person believing that everyone with an internet connection has pirated something at some time...
I haven't forgotten the original point, the one you obviously missed. The OP claimed that "religion is generally useful to control people". Bearing in mind that he had a lot of trouble separating Religion and Christianity, I felt that I should point out that Christianity was created by a dissident. Whatever ruthless rulers decided to adopt it, pervert it, and use it to their own ends, it doesn't change the fact that Christianity and its creator shook up established principles. Your point seems to be that because some rouge ruler was Christian (as if Christianity is the only potential tool for taking and maintaining power), Christianity is bad. You're worse than the RIAA trying to shut down P2P networks. At least the P2P are currently being used to break the law on a large scale.
Well, to be fair, they aren't cracking down on significantly derivative works. Even if the works they derived from weren't in the public domain, they still fall under fair use. But, I take your point: that if the entertainment industry got their way, they would burn the bridge that got them where they are today. Fortunately, copyright is bigger than them.
The artist got his inspiration from fair use, i.e. infringing on tiny portions of other people's works, assuming those parts didn't originally come from public domain works. Anyone else can do the same to him. You can't, however, straight copy his work, because his work isn't just a sum of his parts. There's also creativity and labour in choosing and assembling the work. That labour and creativity was invested solely by him, and is what ties the work to him. Plus, if artistic works were just the sum of their parts, and there was no value in the assembly of those parts, then everyone would just create their own artistic works and not bother buying anything.
Religions don't have executives, it doesn't have workers taking orders, all it has is policy. If you want to attack a religion, concentrate on the policy, not the people possibly mis-executing it. If you see something negative about the policy, and that gets executed, then you are justified in blaming the religion. If a rogue psycho commits genocide in the name of his religion, and genocide isn't sanctioned by that religion, then the fault is on him and him alone. Any good deeds (however you define them) that are encouraged by a religion, and practised by its members, can be attributed at least partially to the religion.
From my experience, most religious teachings are morally compatible with today's society, and they encourage a lot of what we consider positive behaviour.
Warm fuzzy feelings far outweigh torture and genocide?
OK, let's be fair here. Most religions don't advocate genocide, so, for people in that majority of religions, any genocide was committed by the people, not by the religion. How can we be sure that those atrocities wouldn't have been committed, even if the people involved weren't religious? What is it about religion, as opposed to any other difference between groups of humans, that makes it so prone to violence?
Yeah, disproven. There is no God. Religion is full of shit.
Hey I never said it wasn't! But if you want to believe in this "disproof" that no-one's ever seen, no-one's going to challenge you! We believe in freedom of religion here.
Oh, I see an argument coming... "Religion says why, science says how" Fuck That. Religion says "Because God Willed It So" and has nothing, NOTHING else to say.
... which is funny, because you go on to talk about all the (sometimes conflicting) morals that Christianity, oh wait, I'm sorry, religion teaches us. (I forgot that it's so much easier to burn strawmen when you oversimplify things)
Add to the above the fact that religion is generally useful to control people and that explains why we haven't waked up yet. Causal loop : people in power use religion to keep religion in place.
Well, Christianity started out as just the opposite really. Jesus was a dissident, and was challenging a powerful establishment: the Roman Empire. Christianity was used to shake up established morality, and take the fear of eternal damnation out of life, if you would just be prepared to admit your mistakes. It was pretty revolutionary in its day, and those ideas got Jesus killed.
Oh well. If someone repiles with an argument I haven't adressed yet, I'll destroy it then... So, creation of the world - check. The origin of war and the link to religion - check. Destroy the "Religion gives us Morals" argument - check. Destroy "Why vs How" - check.
Religion DOES teach morals, differing with each religion. Perhaps not so clearly with the bible, but through God's and Jesus's basic messages. You can pick at the inconsistencies of the Bible all you want, but that doesn't change the essential messages.
I'd also like to reiterate my first point: that there is no proof that God doesn't exist. No, I'm not going to ask you for your "disproof", because I know there can't possibly be one. God is above logic. He created logic and he can defy logic for all we know. How can you logically disprove something that logic doesn't apply to? Destroy that!
Usual and tiresome disclaimer: I'm not religious, so don't bother calling me a "lobotomised sheep", or whatever you call those effigies you made in the image of religious people.
It's a yin and yang - downloading or fiddling around with videos or music may cost some sales, but it can also generate new fans, who will purchase when they otherwise wouldn't.
I see it the other way: if the copyright holder wants to allow sharing (for that extra profit), then they have to be the one to allow it.
Fair use rights have come under fire since some consumers have taken it upon themselves to extend fair use far beyond its limits, using the powers of their shiny new fast internet connections. The RIAA and the MPAA have just been pushing back. So, thanks to a mutual screwing over and a mutual abuse of power, we have a large mess over which we have to fight to redefine our rights. It's not just the **AA's fault, and pretending it is will just alienate the people who can reinstate your rights.
You're not meant to keep them "in check". The point of a debate is to actually allow the other person to speak, and to engage in discussions about the merits (or otherwise) of those points. Although, based on what I've seen of the/. moderation system, maybe I'm wasting my breath...
Why innovate on a classic? What makes you think that Scrabble owes its popularity to Scrabulous? Most of the people I know have heard of Scrabble, and many of them like to play the game every now and again. Yet, I never once hear of the name Scrabulous being mentioned, or how it's a better game. In fact, after reading the comments here, I still haven't found out exactly what the difference is between Scrabble and Scrabulous, only on how they're extremely similar.
You seem to be talking about copyright holders (or anyone else) monitoring file-sharing sites through publicly available means. This is not what I'm opposing at all. I'm only discussing the proposed bills that, if put into effect, would mean significant steps toward implementing a total surveillance solution.
OK then, it seems we had a misunderstanding. I am assuming you're referring to the bill that would require mandatory ISP filtering? It's just talk. It's designed to promote awareness of piracy, to show people (and the government) how serious they are, and to use in compromise to get more of what they want. It's a stupid bill, and I doubt it'll get passed. Even if it does, by some twisted miracle, it'll be repealed as soon as ISPs all raise their prices significantly.
But nevertheless, I'd like to point out that copyrighted media and free media can survive in parallel. That was what we were talking about originally, right? You were saying that "For you to be able to effectively protect your copyrights, you need to wiretap every communication channel there is, since all of them can be used to commit copyright infringement." Total surveillance is not necessary, just like 0% piracy is not necessary. You can effectively protect your copyrights by concentrating on the P2P sharing. That happens to be the worst place for copyright infringement, because it has strangers virally copying works with other strangers. In fact, any system that requires strangers to copy for other strangers, you, the copyright enforcer, can become one of those strangers, and stop them. That only leaves copying between acquaintances, and that severely limits the viral aspects of sharing. Pair that with a good advertising campaign about the damages of piracy, and you may be able to stop the trend even further. So there you have it: piracy is now only feasible amongst friends, but even then, they may want no part of it.
This has basically been the **AA's strategy so far, but it hasn't exactly worked, due to them cutting costs in their lawsuits, and the resulting community backlash. I think what we need is a separate organisation that's responsible for enforcing copyrights, but without a profit motive. It probably should be government, since it should be not-for-profit. Anyway, copyright holders could register their copyrighted material for a fee, and have them find someone who's infringing on their copyrights. They could then take a lawsuit against the people, and recoup their fee as well as some compensation. Even the smaller independent artists could participate, which would be an improvement, since they previously didn't have the resources to do so.
f your software/movie/album that I'm about to buy costs you effectively zero to produce another copy of it, what should be the appropriate price?
That's a good question, but unfortunately easy to answer (I like tackling the tough ones!). Basically, whatever the market decides. The copyright holder can charge more for early adopters, and lower the price as it's development costs are paid for. Actually, that's just bullshit. The fair price is basically whatever people are willing to pay for the product, which often decreases over time.
If people don't like the price, they do not have the right to pirate it. They can choose an equivalent but different work, they can write letters, sign petitions, boycott, and hope the company in question will change their ways, but not take matters into their own hands.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but I can't make my point any plainer than that. I think that if you could make a cogent argument, you would, instead of just sending out ad-hominem jabs from the safety of your intellectual cocoon. Until then, I'm afraid I agree that we are different leagues, in the same way that kids throwing stones from around corners and out of sight are in a different league from the US army.
I'm not trying to be subtle. Since you aren't exactly being clear, I'm forced to guess at why a bad leader who happened to be Christian makes you offended by Christianity, assuming I'm even in the same ballpark here. If it's incorrect, why don't you just correct me, instead of storming off? Oh that's right, it would mean that you'd have to have your opinions challenged, and you might have to *gasp* learn something. You've successfully attacked me from the shadows this whole time, and now that I actually reach into the shadows and look for your argument, you pick it up and take it home.
As for my Nick, the flamebait tag belongs to you, or at least the OP. Every time an intolerant asshole calls religious people "lobotomized morons", or associates their moral code with a dictator, it's highly offensive to them, and to me, since you are badmouthing some of my friends and family. I also find what I can only assume is your specious reasoning offensive, since it degrades my species' reputation.
While I personally agree with you, the situation isn't that simple. What do we do about the people who have the inclination (not the strong will, but just an inclination) to lose their temper and use any skills they acquire? I know, it's not our responsibility to keep them in the dark, but violent video games make those skills so easy and ready to learn, and a person doesn't need to be seeking out that kind of info in order to get it. It's especially worrisome in children, who may not realise (often due to negligent parenting) that such behaviour is bad. We can blame those parents as much as we want, but after a tragedy, the knee-jerkers aren't going to be too reasonable.
I also have never been satisfactorily explained why the model is outdated. The model is created on copyright law, which is still very current. Copyright law was created to avert the inevitable cultural disaster that came with increased copying and communication potential. The need for copyright law has significantly grown with the internet and P2P. If anything, copyright law and the business model based upon it are less outdated than ever.
I haven't forgotten the original point, the one you obviously missed. The OP claimed that "religion is generally useful to control people". Bearing in mind that he had a lot of trouble separating Religion and Christianity, I felt that I should point out that Christianity was created by a dissident. Whatever ruthless rulers decided to adopt it, pervert it, and use it to their own ends, it doesn't change the fact that Christianity and its creator shook up established principles. Your point seems to be that because some rouge ruler was Christian (as if Christianity is the only potential tool for taking and maintaining power), Christianity is bad. You're worse than the RIAA trying to shut down P2P networks. At least the P2P are currently being used to break the law on a large scale.
Well, to be fair, they aren't cracking down on significantly derivative works. Even if the works they derived from weren't in the public domain, they still fall under fair use. But, I take your point: that if the entertainment industry got their way, they would burn the bridge that got them where they are today. Fortunately, copyright is bigger than them.
The artist got his inspiration from fair use, i.e. infringing on tiny portions of other people's works, assuming those parts didn't originally come from public domain works. Anyone else can do the same to him. You can't, however, straight copy his work, because his work isn't just a sum of his parts. There's also creativity and labour in choosing and assembling the work. That labour and creativity was invested solely by him, and is what ties the work to him. Plus, if artistic works were just the sum of their parts, and there was no value in the assembly of those parts, then everyone would just create their own artistic works and not bother buying anything.
Religions don't have executives, it doesn't have workers taking orders, all it has is policy. If you want to attack a religion, concentrate on the policy, not the people possibly mis-executing it. If you see something negative about the policy, and that gets executed, then you are justified in blaming the religion. If a rogue psycho commits genocide in the name of his religion, and genocide isn't sanctioned by that religion, then the fault is on him and him alone. Any good deeds (however you define them) that are encouraged by a religion, and practised by its members, can be attributed at least partially to the religion.
From my experience, most religious teachings are morally compatible with today's society, and they encourage a lot of what we consider positive behaviour.
I'd also like to reiterate my first point: that there is no proof that God doesn't exist. No, I'm not going to ask you for your "disproof", because I know there can't possibly be one. God is above logic. He created logic and he can defy logic for all we know. How can you logically disprove something that logic doesn't apply to? Destroy that!
Usual and tiresome disclaimer: I'm not religious, so don't bother calling me a "lobotomised sheep", or whatever you call those effigies you made in the image of religious people.
Fair use rights have come under fire since some consumers have taken it upon themselves to extend fair use far beyond its limits, using the powers of their shiny new fast internet connections. The RIAA and the MPAA have just been pushing back. So, thanks to a mutual screwing over and a mutual abuse of power, we have a large mess over which we have to fight to redefine our rights. It's not just the **AA's fault, and pretending it is will just alienate the people who can reinstate your rights.
You're not meant to keep them "in check". The point of a debate is to actually allow the other person to speak, and to engage in discussions about the merits (or otherwise) of those points. Although, based on what I've seen of the /. moderation system, maybe I'm wasting my breath...
Why innovate on a classic? What makes you think that Scrabble owes its popularity to Scrabulous? Most of the people I know have heard of Scrabble, and many of them like to play the game every now and again. Yet, I never once hear of the name Scrabulous being mentioned, or how it's a better game. In fact, after reading the comments here, I still haven't found out exactly what the difference is between Scrabble and Scrabulous, only on how they're extremely similar.
But nevertheless, I'd like to point out that copyrighted media and free media can survive in parallel. That was what we were talking about originally, right? You were saying that "For you to be able to effectively protect your copyrights, you need to wiretap every communication channel there is, since all of them can be used to commit copyright infringement." Total surveillance is not necessary, just like 0% piracy is not necessary. You can effectively protect your copyrights by concentrating on the P2P sharing. That happens to be the worst place for copyright infringement, because it has strangers virally copying works with other strangers. In fact, any system that requires strangers to copy for other strangers, you, the copyright enforcer, can become one of those strangers, and stop them. That only leaves copying between acquaintances, and that severely limits the viral aspects of sharing. Pair that with a good advertising campaign about the damages of piracy, and you may be able to stop the trend even further. So there you have it: piracy is now only feasible amongst friends, but even then, they may want no part of it.
This has basically been the **AA's strategy so far, but it hasn't exactly worked, due to them cutting costs in their lawsuits, and the resulting community backlash. I think what we need is a separate organisation that's responsible for enforcing copyrights, but without a profit motive. It probably should be government, since it should be not-for-profit. Anyway, copyright holders could register their copyrighted material for a fee, and have them find someone who's infringing on their copyrights. They could then take a lawsuit against the people, and recoup their fee as well as some compensation. Even the smaller independent artists could participate, which would be an improvement, since they previously didn't have the resources to do so.
If people don't like the price, they do not have the right to pirate it. They can choose an equivalent but different work, they can write letters, sign petitions, boycott, and hope the company in question will change their ways, but not take matters into their own hands.
Nah, don't look so worried. I doubt they'd learn anything.