Actually that quote is misplaced here. Just because they're watching us, doesn't mean we're not watching them. In fact, the very reason we have this information is because they handed it over in compliance with the FOI act.
Welcome to/. groupthink. Please restrict your scepticism to certain approved topics. Questioning the groupthink position on other topics will be treated swiftly and harshly.
My first reaction was that anyone who downloaded from the files that they provided would not be guilty of copyright infringement, but now that I think about it, I'm not so sure. I mean, they placed the files there in secret, and on all their products have forbidden this type of behaviour. I don't see that this would automatically be construed as permission to download their works. Even if you knew for a fact that the source you were downloading from was EMI, they never actually told you that you were allowed to download from them.
Ahh, bringing politics into this discussion, and implying governments and corporations should have the same right to privacy as real people (not that legal definition BS with corporate personhood).
Using the same system of logic by which you derived this "fact", I can similarly derive the "fact" that you want to destroy all government and authority, and live in complete anarchy, where you can live greedily and without responsibility.
Ahh, partisan politics; there's no substitute for intelligent and rational thought that's more socially accepted.
So you claim, but the rest of your post seems to suggest otherwise. When you say, "How do you function in life spending your time reading every last bit of every last detail of every last "contract" you enter into?", you seem to stress it as though it's an absurd activity, and you infer from his reading of a single contract that either he engages in this behaviour to extreme extents, or that he "has a bone to pick with AT&T" (which is a false dichotomy, by the way). Since the former is stressed to be absurd, we are led to believe that he has a bone to pick with AT&T.
Now, if you have "a bone to pick" with someone, there's a mild implication there that it's as much your problem as the other person's fault; that it's your own peculiar and personal bugbears that are influencing your decision, not that there was any serious wrongdoing by the other party. On top of this, you also appear to reject the any negative effects of the contract clause that's causing the OP trouble, which further cements this impression.
Either way, the possible conclusion that the OP has a bone to pick with AT&T is painted both as inevitable and as bad. Perhaps this was not your intention, but you will excuse me if I hesitate to believe that your post is a search for answers, rather than merely a rant.
Yes, but since this particular cop only fights crime by making available files about the perpetrators on his desk, then not having old files presently on his desk is the same as not presently fighting those particular criminals.
Come to think of it, I think this analogy doesn't really capture all the nuances of this issue.
I can only imagine China's delight with each new release from WikiLeaks.
Ha! They may be delighting now, but wait until tomorrow! I hear that wikileaks is publishing a classified document by an american diplomat, in which he calls all of china's leadership "poopy-pants". That'll show 'em!
Read spazmonkey's posts again. There is a subtle but vitally important distinction between whining that a cop only arrested you, and wining that a cop is corrupt, as evidenced by their reluctance to even turn their attention to any other criminal except you. Well, except that spazmonkey here isn't even a criminal in this analogy...
No. It's what people tell us that the government tells us. I haven't seen one such message from the government saying otherwise. Feel free to show me otherwise if you can, but I highly doubt it's possible.
you want to throw them away because "Dude, that's like SO last year". That's a very childish and ignorant attitude to have.
That's very true. Almost as ignorant and, frankly, stupid as making up a position to attack also known as burning a strawman.
I didn't say I wanted to throw out the constitution. I certainly didn't say it was because it's getting on in years. Hell I didn't even say I supported the viewpoint of the OP, just that arguing via strawman is wrong, and not in the least bit convincing. Again, your leaps in logic are extremely telling.
OK, now I'll weigh in. I support the OP. Not because I think the ideas in the constitution are "bad" (and the OP said himself that the ideas were good ideas), and not simply because the ideas happened to be expressed and conceived hundreds of years ago, but because I believe that change is inevitable, and people should not be held hostage to the values of the past. The constitution is only there so long as people agree with it.
I mean, imagine if the constitution had been some ultra-conservative Christian agenda. What if, say, harsh punishments for sex outside marriage was not only permitted but mandated? Allowing a sex outside of marriage would be a betrayal of the values that country would have been founded upon, but that's not to say it would betray the values of today. Keeping such a standard, for no other reason than to avoid betraying founding principles, would be simply against public interest.
Sure, you can always pass an amendment, which is what the US does (and previously has done) with sentiments that have lost their relevance, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I've seen a lot of focus on the "founding" principles of the nation, and considerably less on the current principles of the nation. The constitution, and by extension, all bodies governed by it, should only be there to further the people of today, not the people of 300 years ago.
It's extremely telling that you jumped straight from "Let people choose their own government, not hold them hostage to the thoughts of guys born 300 years ago" to "I'm a totalitarian dictator wannabe". If burning strawmen is how you promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy, then that might explain the down-mods you've been getting.
before ALL of these, come the question that whether the administration of a country is BETRAYING its ideals, or not.
FTFY. Surely it's the ideals of the country now, rather than the ideals of a handful of people hundreds of years ago? After all, it's not those handful of people who have to deal with the administration today!
There is a huge difference in price between $0 and $0.01. At least for me, to pay any amount, I need to trust the seller enough to give my card info (better if he accepts paypal) have the money in my account that is associated with the card (I usually do not keep money there in case someone manages to get my card number). Also, if something's free I can just test it and if I don't like it - no big deal, but if I paid some money for it then it means that I "lost" the money.
So, what if they do accept paypal? I'm concerned that arguments here appeal to the convenience of the process, rather than morality of their actions. Surely you can imagine a situation where paying is only a tiny iota more inconvenient than downloading for free?
Because people have copied records/tapes and taped off TV/radio for a long time now and the industry is not bankrupt for some reason, maybe the non-commercial copyright infringement is not as bad as MAFIAA says it is?
It may be, but that requires proof. It could also be that people with a moral objection to piracy are largely supporting the industry. Not that pirates never pay for anything, just that they don't generally pull their weight.
So, make the legit product somehow better.
You misunderstand me. The commercial illegitimate copy is equalled or superseded in every metric by the free illegitimate copy. If someone will pay for an illegitimate copy, they would definitely download an illegitimate copy. If you allow non-commercial sharing, you might as well allow commercial sharing, because nobody would bother commercial sharing. With non-commercial sharing, the point about commercial sharing is completely moot.
1) I happen to think that copyright is broken, due to the Congress deciding to take something limited by the Constitution and making it effectively unlimited. I'm just this side of thinking that piracy could be a form of civil disobedience, but I think for most people, it's all a matter of (4).
Yes, I forgot about that one. However, it doesn't apply here. CD Projekt is not responsible for copyright extensions. Besides, I've never heard of any advantage of piracy over boycotting, other than for the pirate himself.
In my mind, there's a moral difference between taking something someone else has created and using it versus taking something someone else has created and reselling it (via incorporating it into a new product.)
From what I understand, that's true in many people's minds. However, it's not in my mind. It probably stems from the fact that I don't see copyright's existence from a moral perspective, rather from a purely utilitarian perspective. It's there to give us maximum variety, choice, and growth in culture. This is considerably more undermined by free sharing than it is by commercial selling, since the free option is always the more appealing.
As I also said in one of my other replies, the existence of free alternatives for illegitimate copies makes it a moot point anyway. Nobody would buy copies that they could just as legitimately get for free.
3) The power differential is astounding. Most companies legal retainers are a drop in the bucket, whereas most individuals hiring a lawyer would nearly bankrupt them. This is a problem with our legal system more than anything, but it's still a problem.
Certainly. Number 3) is the option I tend to respect the most. Thanks to a problem inherent in our legal system (one without a clear solution), we are caught between a rock and a hard place. So I can sympathise with people who acknowledge the need for the power to sue pirates, but hate when people use it.
That really depends on what you owe for in the first place. Not paying for damages that you caused would, well, be damaging (due to the fact that the person never actually paid it off and the original person had to).
Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?
Same thing goes for not paying for something that you bought, as they lost a physical object of a certain estimated value (according to the current system) and were never paid back for it. Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.
Oh, so you can identify analogous situations. Can you identify the analogy with piracy?
Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.
Nope. You use your conclusions in justifying your argument, and the logic comes full circle.
Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you. By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you. By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.
At least, I haven't interacted with you physically. That does not imply that you were not affected by my actions, or that my actions have not hurt you. It's simply false to think that the only meaningful interactions are physical.
Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.
As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game. You say that pirates "did not interact" with the developers. I assume you think that pirates didn't harm the developers. But, if everybody decided to pirate, then all the time the developers put into their work would be undeniably wasted, and they would be hurt (just like the contracted labourer was hurt). By contradiction, the assumption that piracy does not hurt developers cannot possibly be true.
My point is, blaming pirates for the shortcomings of a broken system is illogical. If artists can't make money without harming innocents, that sounds like a problem with the system.
By your broken definition of "innocent", I reckon I could make everyone innocent of just about any crime.
Thief? The window was broken and the TV was stolen while the family wasn't home, so there was no interaction with them. Blaming the thief for the shortcomings of their security system is illogical.
Traffic offence? The guy's running of a red light caused three cars to be totalled, but since he didn't interact with us, he's totally innocent. Blaming him for the shortcomings of traffic intersections is illogical.
Murder? It was the bullet/blade that penetrated the skin, not the trigger/handle. Blaming the killer for the shortcomings of biology is illogical.
Sharing copyrighted material for profit is bad, how about this?
Ah, yep. That's the one I mean.
What I mean is - it is difficult to prove or disprove that somebody who downloaded the game for free would have bought it, after all, there is a huge price difference between free and $50 and I have a limited amount of money and could buy a limited amount of games, while I could download much more games (depending on the hard drive size and connection speed). However, if somebody bought the game from a pirate it is more likely that they would have bought the game legitimately if the pirated version was not available (even worse is when the pirate tricks the buyer into thinking that it is the legit version and sells it for the price of the legit version).
Prices can be priced at any point, from free to full price and beyond. It seems true that the higher the price, the more likely the person is to have bought the product, but there are other considerations:
1) If a person pays nothing, does that mean they would never have bought the product at any price point the maker decides to price at in the future? 2) If someone sells illegitimate copies of copyrighted materials for prices a little above bandwidth costs (e.g. allofmp3.com), are they really that much worse than those who just give away for free? 3) Why do we need to make a loophole for non-commercial sharing? The people who would never have bought the product can just treat entertainment like all the other products they would never have bought.
And most importantly:
4) If free versions are available, then everyone who would have bought a commercial illegitimate copy will now just take a free version, thus making any bans on commercial infringement completely and utterly ineffective.
Let's apply this principle to something less contentious. Say, like many people, you have a bank account with your life savings in it. You willingly gave the bank money, and they kept track of the amount of money owed via some kind of digitally stored number. Let's say I then managed to somehow reduce that number to 0 and increase my number by exactly the same amount. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. If anything, the bank is the one guilty of theft, because, by refusing to pay you money from an empty balance, they are depriving you of something you previously owned (even though you gave it to them willingly).
Perhaps I am guilty of theft, and your characterisation is simply wrong (I have my money on this one!). Perhaps I am not guilty of theft, but in which case, the argument over whether it's theft or not is a red herring. No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you, despite the fact I have not deprived you of anything you owned.
Not convincing enough? Let's look at another one of my favourite examples. Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to. It's not anything that you did wrong, just that they would prefer to keep the contracted work and the money. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. Why? Because you never owned the money they were going to pay you, so they never "deprived you of something you previously owned". All they have deprived you of "potential profit", but as we all know, "potential profit" does not imply guaranteed profit, so therefore it's always worthless, right?
As someone who's had plenty of people raise objections to me (I happen to be firmly planted on the other side of the debate), I can tell you they almost always boil down to one or more of the following:
1) There's nothing wrong with sharing/copyright is bad 2) Sharing is only bad when companies do it (though I've had real trouble getting anyone to be able to justify why that is) 3) OK, sharing is bad/copyright is fine, but I still don't like companies suing people 4) I can't have whatever I want? No fair!
Although, I find with certain people arguing for points 1) and 2) that their arguments make significantly less sense if you assume they're not implicitly arguing for point 4). And by "certain people", I do not mean "all people". I can think of several people to whom this definitely did not apply.
If it's so obvious, then surely you can easily convince me as to its truth. What makes you so sure that not one person actually thought about the policy? I can only assume you have some sort of mind-reading ray that you've secretly developed. I simply can't see how you would reach that conclusion any other way.
If you don't understand the thought process behind a decision, then instantly calling it a knee jerk is itself a knee jerk. If you do understand the thought process behind it, and call it a knee jerk anyway, then it's simply deceitful. What makes you so sure that the government didn't think this one through?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that quote is misplaced here. Just because they're watching us, doesn't mean we're not watching them. In fact, the very reason we have this information is because they handed it over in compliance with the FOI act.
Welcome to /. groupthink. Please restrict your scepticism to certain approved topics. Questioning the groupthink position on other topics will be treated swiftly and harshly.
My first reaction was that anyone who downloaded from the files that they provided would not be guilty of copyright infringement, but now that I think about it, I'm not so sure. I mean, they placed the files there in secret, and on all their products have forbidden this type of behaviour. I don't see that this would automatically be construed as permission to download their works. Even if you knew for a fact that the source you were downloading from was EMI, they never actually told you that you were allowed to download from them.
Using the same system of logic by which you derived this "fact", I can similarly derive the "fact" that you want to destroy all government and authority, and live in complete anarchy, where you can live greedily and without responsibility.
Ahh, partisan politics; there's no substitute for intelligent and rational thought that's more socially accepted.
So you claim, but the rest of your post seems to suggest otherwise. When you say, "How do you function in life spending your time reading every last bit of every last detail of every last "contract" you enter into?", you seem to stress it as though it's an absurd activity, and you infer from his reading of a single contract that either he engages in this behaviour to extreme extents, or that he "has a bone to pick with AT&T" (which is a false dichotomy, by the way). Since the former is stressed to be absurd, we are led to believe that he has a bone to pick with AT&T.
Now, if you have "a bone to pick" with someone, there's a mild implication there that it's as much your problem as the other person's fault; that it's your own peculiar and personal bugbears that are influencing your decision, not that there was any serious wrongdoing by the other party. On top of this, you also appear to reject the any negative effects of the contract clause that's causing the OP trouble, which further cements this impression.
Either way, the possible conclusion that the OP has a bone to pick with AT&T is painted both as inevitable and as bad. Perhaps this was not your intention, but you will excuse me if I hesitate to believe that your post is a search for answers, rather than merely a rant.
Yes, but since this particular cop only fights crime by making available files about the perpetrators on his desk, then not having old files presently on his desk is the same as not presently fighting those particular criminals.
Come to think of it, I think this analogy doesn't really capture all the nuances of this issue.
Ha! They may be delighting now, but wait until tomorrow! I hear that wikileaks is publishing a classified document by an american diplomat, in which he calls all of china's leadership "poopy-pants". That'll show 'em!
Read spazmonkey's posts again. There is a subtle but vitally important distinction between whining that a cop only arrested you, and wining that a cop is corrupt, as evidenced by their reluctance to even turn their attention to any other criminal except you. Well, except that spazmonkey here isn't even a criminal in this analogy...
No. It's what people tell us that the government tells us. I haven't seen one such message from the government saying otherwise. Feel free to show me otherwise if you can, but I highly doubt it's possible.
That's very true. Almost as ignorant and, frankly, stupid as making up a position to attack also known as burning a strawman.
I didn't say I wanted to throw out the constitution. I certainly didn't say it was because it's getting on in years. Hell I didn't even say I supported the viewpoint of the OP, just that arguing via strawman is wrong, and not in the least bit convincing. Again, your leaps in logic are extremely telling.
OK, now I'll weigh in. I support the OP. Not because I think the ideas in the constitution are "bad" (and the OP said himself that the ideas were good ideas), and not simply because the ideas happened to be expressed and conceived hundreds of years ago, but because I believe that change is inevitable, and people should not be held hostage to the values of the past. The constitution is only there so long as people agree with it.
I mean, imagine if the constitution had been some ultra-conservative Christian agenda. What if, say, harsh punishments for sex outside marriage was not only permitted but mandated? Allowing a sex outside of marriage would be a betrayal of the values that country would have been founded upon, but that's not to say it would betray the values of today. Keeping such a standard, for no other reason than to avoid betraying founding principles, would be simply against public interest.
Sure, you can always pass an amendment, which is what the US does (and previously has done) with sentiments that have lost their relevance, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I've seen a lot of focus on the "founding" principles of the nation, and considerably less on the current principles of the nation. The constitution, and by extension, all bodies governed by it, should only be there to further the people of today, not the people of 300 years ago.
It's extremely telling that you jumped straight from "Let people choose their own government, not hold them hostage to the thoughts of guys born 300 years ago" to "I'm a totalitarian dictator wannabe". If burning strawmen is how you promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy, then that might explain the down-mods you've been getting.
FTFY. Surely it's the ideals of the country now, rather than the ideals of a handful of people hundreds of years ago? After all, it's not those handful of people who have to deal with the administration today!
So, what if they do accept paypal? I'm concerned that arguments here appeal to the convenience of the process, rather than morality of their actions. Surely you can imagine a situation where paying is only a tiny iota more inconvenient than downloading for free?
It may be, but that requires proof. It could also be that people with a moral objection to piracy are largely supporting the industry. Not that pirates never pay for anything, just that they don't generally pull their weight.
You misunderstand me. The commercial illegitimate copy is equalled or superseded in every metric by the free illegitimate copy. If someone will pay for an illegitimate copy, they would definitely download an illegitimate copy. If you allow non-commercial sharing, you might as well allow commercial sharing, because nobody would bother commercial sharing. With non-commercial sharing, the point about commercial sharing is completely moot.
Yes, I forgot about that one. However, it doesn't apply here. CD Projekt is not responsible for copyright extensions. Besides, I've never heard of any advantage of piracy over boycotting, other than for the pirate himself.
From what I understand, that's true in many people's minds. However, it's not in my mind. It probably stems from the fact that I don't see copyright's existence from a moral perspective, rather from a purely utilitarian perspective. It's there to give us maximum variety, choice, and growth in culture. This is considerably more undermined by free sharing than it is by commercial selling, since the free option is always the more appealing.
As I also said in one of my other replies, the existence of free alternatives for illegitimate copies makes it a moot point anyway. Nobody would buy copies that they could just as legitimately get for free.
Certainly. Number 3) is the option I tend to respect the most. Thanks to a problem inherent in our legal system (one without a clear solution), we are caught between a rock and a hard place. So I can sympathise with people who acknowledge the need for the power to sue pirates, but hate when people use it.
I remember you too.
Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?
Oh, so you can identify analogous situations. Can you identify the analogy with piracy?
Nope. You use your conclusions in justifying your argument, and the logic comes full circle.
Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you. By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you. By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.
At least, I haven't interacted with you physically. That does not imply that you were not affected by my actions, or that my actions have not hurt you. It's simply false to think that the only meaningful interactions are physical.
As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game. You say that pirates "did not interact" with the developers. I assume you think that pirates didn't harm the developers. But, if everybody decided to pirate, then all the time the developers put into their work would be undeniably wasted, and they would be hurt (just like the contracted labourer was hurt). By contradiction, the assumption that piracy does not hurt developers cannot possibly be true.
By your broken definition of "innocent", I reckon I could make everyone innocent of just about any crime.
Thief? The window was broken and the TV was stolen while the family wasn't home, so there was no interaction with them. Blaming the thief for the shortcomings of their security system is illogical.
Traffic offence? The guy's running of a red light caused three cars to be totalled, but since he didn't interact with us, he's totally innocent. Blaming him for the shortcomings of traffic intersections is illogical.
Murder? It was the bullet/blade that penetrated the skin, not the trigger/handle. Blaming the killer for the shortcomings of biology is illogical.
Your definition is very much broken.
Ah, yep. That's the one I mean.
Prices can be priced at any point, from free to full price and beyond. It seems true that the higher the price, the more likely the person is to have bought the product, but there are other considerations:
1) If a person pays nothing, does that mean they would never have bought the product at any price point the maker decides to price at in the future?
2) If someone sells illegitimate copies of copyrighted materials for prices a little above bandwidth costs (e.g. allofmp3.com), are they really that much worse than those who just give away for free?
3) Why do we need to make a loophole for non-commercial sharing? The people who would never have bought the product can just treat entertainment like all the other products they would never have bought.
And most importantly:
4) If free versions are available, then everyone who would have bought a commercial illegitimate copy will now just take a free version, thus making any bans on commercial infringement completely and utterly ineffective.
Let's apply this principle to something less contentious. Say, like many people, you have a bank account with your life savings in it. You willingly gave the bank money, and they kept track of the amount of money owed via some kind of digitally stored number. Let's say I then managed to somehow reduce that number to 0 and increase my number by exactly the same amount. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. If anything, the bank is the one guilty of theft, because, by refusing to pay you money from an empty balance, they are depriving you of something you previously owned (even though you gave it to them willingly).
Perhaps I am guilty of theft, and your characterisation is simply wrong (I have my money on this one!). Perhaps I am not guilty of theft, but in which case, the argument over whether it's theft or not is a red herring. No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you, despite the fact I have not deprived you of anything you owned.
Not convincing enough? Let's look at another one of my favourite examples. Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to. It's not anything that you did wrong, just that they would prefer to keep the contracted work and the money. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. Why? Because you never owned the money they were going to pay you, so they never "deprived you of something you previously owned". All they have deprived you of "potential profit", but as we all know, "potential profit" does not imply guaranteed profit, so therefore it's always worthless, right?
As someone who's had plenty of people raise objections to me (I happen to be firmly planted on the other side of the debate), I can tell you they almost always boil down to one or more of the following:
1) There's nothing wrong with sharing/copyright is bad
2) Sharing is only bad when companies do it (though I've had real trouble getting anyone to be able to justify why that is)
3) OK, sharing is bad/copyright is fine, but I still don't like companies suing people
4) I can't have whatever I want? No fair!
Although, I find with certain people arguing for points 1) and 2) that their arguments make significantly less sense if you assume they're not implicitly arguing for point 4). And by "certain people", I do not mean "all people". I can think of several people to whom this definitely did not apply.
What? I didn't say anything! ;-)
Awww... can't think for yourself, eh?
I find it very, very telling that the students not only managed to dodge all the blame from your post, but that they actually received some kudos.
No fair! You biased the result with humour!
If it's so obvious, then surely you can easily convince me as to its truth. What makes you so sure that not one person actually thought about the policy? I can only assume you have some sort of mind-reading ray that you've secretly developed. I simply can't see how you would reach that conclusion any other way.
If you don't understand the thought process behind a decision, then instantly calling it a knee jerk is itself a knee jerk. If you do understand the thought process behind it, and call it a knee jerk anyway, then it's simply deceitful. What makes you so sure that the government didn't think this one through?
... than a Westener who thinks cultural diversity is exists only because the West hasn't given them the right culture yet.