Another classic example why victimless crimes should be abolished.
But, OTOH, if we abolish such laws, we should probably abolish any state financial safety nets for people who fall through the cracks. It's not fair that the voluntary and presumably informed choices of others to be charged directly to the taxpayers.
That's exactly what copyright is for - to decide what can and cannot be used, in what manner, by whom and under which terms. Financial benefit doesn't enter into the equation (directly anyway) - Financial viability is not the determining factor in copyright assignment, it never was, it's about ownership and author's rights, which facilitates the making of money from copyrighted works.
Wait. Are you seriously suggesting that copyright is, among other things, designed to allow a corporation, who had absolutely no involvement in producing these photos, and who have no intention of furthering the production of more such photos, to annex the copyrights through the fine print in "agreements", and determine what the public can or cannot see?
That doesn't sound like it furthers science and the essential arts, does it?
Not that "Ask first, shoot later" isn't a reasonable policy in private situations, but this corporate censorship is not what copyright is for.
Software companies can always find ways to increase profit margins per unit sold.
By adding advertising, clearly the company didn't think that they had reached their sweet spot, and we're ready to extract more money per unit sold through advertising, rather than a direct price rise.
For game software, I think it is pretty clear that it has been overpriced for a while. Case in point is Valve's Left For Dead game. They dropped the price from $50 to $20 and demand shot up, I believe it was in the neighborhood of tenfold but it would not have to be nearly that high to yield a much higher profit.
Oh no. There's no such thing as making more money by selling above the sweet spot. That contradicts the definition of the sweet spot.
Dropping the price is standard practice to re-stimulate sales. Once everyone who is happy to pay $50 has bought it, then they can milk the remaining market at $20 (and possibly $10 in the distant future). Once they exhaust one tier of demand, it becomes unprofitable to maintain the same price. The sweet spot moves.
(Have I convinced you yet that I know about market economics?)
Software companies can always find ways to increase profit margins per unit sold. Some people prefer it come from advertising, rather than coming from price rises or developer lay-offs.
and you are a reactionary (inability to deal with change), and you most certainly aren't smart. if you were smart, at this point you would have been able to at least describe, if not convince me of, a valid point of view other than flailing around, panicking at the loss of a system dead for a number of years now
I can, however, detect a troll. In my last three posts, I've countered this specific point. I also notice that you haven't actually shown any conviction in arguing your point, rather you've concentrated on misrepresenting my viewpoints. I am now thoroughly convinced that you are a troll.
If you want a serious discussion, you can have it. If you just want a reaction, well, you got it already.
No, you really don't. You really, truly don't. I will give you a hint though: it's a test, and you failed. It's also an appropriate name for me, for reasons I don't expect people to know.
i'm not describing a hypothetical system. i'm describing reality whether or not you like it.
Look, perhaps you're right. Perhaps that's where we are currently heading. I've never been one for sitting back while disaster looms, comforted in the knowledge that I'm smarter than the masses.
Right now, copyright is a reality. Right now, misinformation on copyright, piracy, lawsuits and lobbying over piracy, and deeply, deeply corrupting greed on both sides is a reality. The way I deal with such matters is to face them head on, and attempt to dispel the bullshit justifications and scapegoats that are fuelling this whole problem.
Speaking of which...
i agree 100%. if you notice what i am describing only screws over distributors.
No. Seriously, no. You are describing a lot of harmful things to many people, from us, to distributors, to artists. However, making the absurd (but thankfully temporary) assumption that your system hurt middlemen, then what you are effectively doing is removing the artist's ability to choose whether to be represented, or go it alone. You would be providing exactly less choice to artists, which will translate to less choice for consumers.
Today, we can choose between indie artists and signed artists. Those who want indie artists can find them, and those who want signed artists can find them as well. Now, it honestly escapes me, where is the benefit of removing choice by dictating choices down to other people? Especially since sales figures say that you are advocating removing the more popular part! It simply boggles the mind that anybody could possibly think that this is a good idea!
So, yeah. Your system basically systematises the screwing of artists, whereas now they at least have the option of being screwed over or not.
artists give away their media, it serves as advertising for their concert gigs (this radical communist system is similar to what you know as "radio airplay")
No, it's not. I've already demonstrated the significant difference in a previous post which you haven't read. I suppose you don't listen to undeniable logic from a troll (another hint).
they make money at concert gigs
No they don't. Again, it's been dealt with.
its a nice six figure life for a large number of good artists. how is that being screwed over? because jay z's great grandchildren aren't now guaranteed a cash flow for doing nothing?
So, what you're essentially saying is that being an artist is only a decent living if you're as mainstream popular as Jay Z?
I don't know about you, but I feel that variety and niche markets are an important part of culture, but I guess you don't care, so long as music follows exclusively your tastes (which it won't, even under your system).
---
Seriously, I would start opening your eyes. There are millions of people willing to financially support the copyright system. While they are still willing to buy signed bands, your system will never take over, no matter how much you close your eyes and say "la la la i cant hear you".
if technological change is fair. they are sitting around, enjoying their priveledged status, and along come a few hundred assholes in these things called saling ships with horses and iron armor and something called a firearm
and centuries old social and legal structures of millions of the people crumble practically overnight
If the conquistadores missed their mark as much as you missed the point, they would have had their butts kicked. Nowhere do I claim that it's unfair. Nowhere do I complain about the speed of change. Somewhere did I say that I had no undue attachment to the current system.
In the depths of your idiocy, you still cling to the assumption that I'm championing an outdated system, or artists or both, despite me actually contradicting that assumption previously. I'm not actually worried about the artists. Y'know why? Because you simply can't maintain a system where the artists get screwed over. Life is tough enough for the majority of them already. As soon as you make it significantly more difficult, 90% of them are going to get up and leave. Maybe the mega rich corporate sellouts might stick around, but that innovative indie band trying to make a break? They're gone.
the point is, there is no way to bloodlessly transition from the old technological reality to the new technological reality. there is no way to honor the old copyright system in a new system of free-music-as-only-advertising that resembles radio airplay
Argh! It's not about honouring the old system, it's about instituting change in a way that doesn't completely destroy our culture! That's why it must be bloodless.
And there is such a way. I was hinting at it before. It's called the free market.
The way it works is that you, and anyone you can convince (highly unlikely, given your comprehension rate of my post), buy only what you want. Go only to concerts of people who only release free (libre) music. These people are clearly willing to work under your new system, so sticking with them will give you a good idea of what it would be like under that system. You may have a little trouble finding bands like that, but that's only because your current ideas are completely non-viable. You really can't expect anyone else beyond those people to stick around.
Of course, you also have to deal with the decreased variety in music. Piracy, for reasons you probably didn't read in my previous post, is out. This is another thing that we'd be stuck with if you had your way, and spoiled everything for the rest of us.
Oh, and best of all, the free market can accommodate for multiple systems. We have a flourishing FOSS market, which sometimes doesn't even use copyright! Someone had an idea, like you, and created an alternate system, and made it work. Then someone had a better idea, and decided to use the control that copyright afforded to make an even better system. These days, they all coexist. People who prefer whatever system have their choice.
You, too, could have your own ideas come to fruition, but only if others are willing to support them. However, your ideas, as you said so yourself, are not revolutionary, yet there isn't a big market for this kind of thing. People don't want their only source of professional-sounding music to be exclusively live. Most of these patrons supplement their tastes with buying/pirating other less free music sources.
Basically, your idea has failed before you even had it. You're just going to have to deal with it.
so what happens? those who are invested in the old system suffer. you speak as such a person. i'm sorry that technological change has made you suffer. go commiserate with the aztec and incan nobles
Why do I write, when you don't bother to read?
but not in a million years should technological progress be halted just because it hurts those invested in an old defunct system. its a couple thousan
creators get fame and esteem and girl's panties tossed on stage. this is how they make cash from now on: touring. other ancillary services like advertising, personally signed media, etc.: lots of ways to make a comfortable living as an artist
What if their medium is not performance, or being a sellout? Or if they don't produce music/movies? Are you suggesting that what will amount to abolishing professional CD and DVD recording, is actually a positive step for our culture? What do we do when ebook readers become more popular?
Your solution has no foresight, no benefits that we don't already enjoy now, and no flexibility. It's simply a hack to work with our current times and (some) current tastes.
meanwhile, all recorded music is nothing but free advertising for the band itself.
Of course, because recording something is free, and certainly doesn't have any work behind it.
No wonder you don't support copyright. You don't meet the minimum system requirements.
not that my hippie maoist communist socialist thinking is that revolutionary. its the same business model you know as "radio airplay"
Except without the free ticket to download any song you want, and the artist gets a say in how much he gives away for the sake of advertising.
Radio is the free advertising. The reason why it actually works is because there is no guarantee that the song you want to hear will be on the radio at any given time, and some such songs are impossible to hear (legally) on the radio. There is incentive to buy behind radio play.
Sure, there's incentive to buy behind releasing recordings before concerts, but not nearly as much. It affords too much value to give away for free. Smart artists (that is, artists who don't go out of business) would cripple it as much as possible, probably by severely limiting what they release. Expect only a couple of songs to be released officially, or expect the songs to be poorly produced (to give incentive to see them live).
truly i am a wacky obamacare secret communist muslim. and other such moronic epithets WITHOUT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING. pffffft
I see that you haven't noticed that I haven't resorted to name-calling. And why would I, when I have so many cogent and logical arguments to make?
welcome to the life of sculptors and dancers. are they any less artists because they don't have jay z's money?
Certainly not, but they certainly are less of an artist when they get a real job to try to survive the perennial income from touring. There's only so many you can do before people lose their excitement over seeing you.
you make music because you love it, not because you want $, right?
I support copyright precisely because I can't create music (or any other kind of commercially valuable art). I value the talent of others to at least let them name the price of their own work.
Oh, and the fact that you said "music" and not "art" is typical of your tunnel-vision with regard to copyright.
well even if that's not true, what i am describing is the model we are moving to. you ask me to find another way. my "other way" requires no finding, requires no enforcement, its just evolving naturally. it just happens. so it is beholden to you to find another way, as my way is the way IT IS BECOMING EFFORTLESSLY. deal with it
Look, I have no undue attachment to the current system. All I know is that it works for me, and millions upon millions of others. If you can seriously find another system, independent of copyright, that gives me the artworks I want, and prove that it works in a safe way, then I'm in. I'll bear no grudge. If what you say is true, and that the new system is inevitable, then more power to you.
I'm sure creators have already leaned towards "fuck you" themselves. I'm sorry that you can't get everything at a price that you want, when you want, and how you want, but you can still just buy the damn thing, or not. Sorry, them's the brakes: pay for the work of others that you use.
The original idea of championing individual rights has been completely corrupted by greed and affluence. The hoard of self-justifying pirates make sure that the actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $.
Piracy has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to destroy piracy, and educate others on the damage it causes, since our common sense, which is supposed to serve us, seems to be serving nothing but our basest, greediest desires (with our values in tow).
Seriously though, if you have a better system for encouraging creation, then support it, and stop pissing in our system. Some of us don't want to destroy the entire system, and hope that something better will take its place. Start by only dealing with business models you agree with, and lose the "it's our culture, so hand it over" crap. Artists work on these things. It's not about working once and collecting ever after (that's EXTREMELY hard to do), it's about getting paid, one way or another. So I reiterate: find and support another way, or STFU.
Not quite. They can choose which pictures to leave up or take down. They're free to claim whichever photos they like, and encourage the dissemination of the ones they do. This is not what copyright is for.
There's no significant financial benefit in owning these pictures, so I can only agree with the summary: this is for censorship and nothing else.
All of the above assumes warrants were issued by appropriate systems, of course. Police need to have at least some faculty to inspect the private, otherwise they're, quite literally, completely and utterly useless.
Wait, isn't this more like police demanding you unlock a door? You can't hide evidence behind a physical lock, so why should a digital lock be different?
We all have a right to vote, but if yopur vote is based on fallicy or a complete lack of knowledge, you should not be allowed to register that vote.
I was going to make a snarky remark about how saying that would automatically disqualify you for a vote, but I figured I might as well educate rather than humiliate.
Fallacies are a part of everyday lives. A fallacy can be objectively, mathematically defined, essentially as an argument that can't possibly be true, given that it's hypotheses are true. For example, the argument that goes like this:
* If it rains, I will get wet * It is raining * I will get wet
is not a fallacy. An example of a fallacy is:
* Everyone voted republican * If everyone votes republican, then republicans will have the power to stop gun restrictions * The republicans want to stop gun restrictions * Therefore, we will not get gun restrictions
because it is possible to have a republican who supports gun restrictions.
Of course, a fallacy in this sense, while it can be mirrored in Real Life (with some effort), it makes little sense to, because everyone uses fallacies in this sense. Most use them everyday. If we relax the definition of fallacy, then we really have no definition of fallacy (another fallacy right there). Suddenly, barring people from voting is purely subjective, and based on (supposedly fallacious) opinions we don't like. Suddenly, we don't have a democracy any more.
It's the right of everyone to vote. It's a vital part of democracy.
Ah, but where in your in argument there did you use the fact that they were posting as a requirement for their course?
You can argue against them without knowing where they came from, because it's their arguments, not their origins, that are, if not provably wrong, then not falsifiable.
I didn't mean that they're right, just that they use rational thought based on judgement of rational evidence. Intelligent design has some intelligent proponents, who actually can argue their case. And yes, they do refer to evidence.
As long as the students fully disclose that they are doing this for a class requirement, this could be a good thing, for the students, for the school, and for anyone participating in the resulting discussion.
I, personally, don't see why the students should have to disclose anything. Their opinions are valid (even if their evidence is... er... patchy), and I don't see how knowing who inspired their comments would do anything but open them up for cheap ad hominem shots.
If they're really so wrong, we should be able to demonstrate it without such disclosures.
Slashdot Mirror
On average, you're fine.
It's the people who want to be able to gamble from home (or anywhere, for that matter) who are, on average, less trustworthy.
But, OTOH, if we abolish such laws, we should probably abolish any state financial safety nets for people who fall through the cracks. It's not fair that the voluntary and presumably informed choices of others to be charged directly to the taxpayers.
Wait. Are you seriously suggesting that copyright is, among other things, designed to allow a corporation, who had absolutely no involvement in producing these photos, and who have no intention of furthering the production of more such photos, to annex the copyrights through the fine print in "agreements", and determine what the public can or cannot see?
That doesn't sound like it furthers science and the essential arts, does it?
Not that "Ask first, shoot later" isn't a reasonable policy in private situations, but this corporate censorship is not what copyright is for.
Is this cryptic lawspeak for "cash up front"?
You didn't carefully ready wording:
By adding advertising, clearly the company didn't think that they had reached their sweet spot, and we're ready to extract more money per unit sold through advertising, rather than a direct price rise.
Oh no. There's no such thing as making more money by selling above the sweet spot. That contradicts the definition of the sweet spot.
Dropping the price is standard practice to re-stimulate sales. Once everyone who is happy to pay $50 has bought it, then they can milk the remaining market at $20 (and possibly $10 in the distant future). Once they exhaust one tier of demand, it becomes unprofitable to maintain the same price. The sweet spot moves.
(Have I convinced you yet that I know about market economics?)
Software companies can always find ways to increase profit margins per unit sold. Some people prefer it come from advertising, rather than coming from price rises or developer lay-offs.
Basically, it makes a difference.
... and you can't detect irony.
I can, however, detect a troll. In my last three posts, I've countered this specific point. I also notice that you haven't actually shown any conviction in arguing your point, rather you've concentrated on misrepresenting my viewpoints. I am now thoroughly convinced that you are a troll.
If you want a serious discussion, you can have it. If you just want a reaction, well, you got it already.
No, you really don't. You really, truly don't. I will give you a hint though: it's a test, and you failed. It's also an appropriate name for me, for reasons I don't expect people to know.
Look, perhaps you're right. Perhaps that's where we are currently heading. I've never been one for sitting back while disaster looms, comforted in the knowledge that I'm smarter than the masses.
Right now, copyright is a reality. Right now, misinformation on copyright, piracy, lawsuits and lobbying over piracy, and deeply, deeply corrupting greed on both sides is a reality. The way I deal with such matters is to face them head on, and attempt to dispel the bullshit justifications and scapegoats that are fuelling this whole problem.
Speaking of which...
No. Seriously, no. You are describing a lot of harmful things to many people, from us, to distributors, to artists. However, making the absurd (but thankfully temporary) assumption that your system hurt middlemen, then what you are effectively doing is removing the artist's ability to choose whether to be represented, or go it alone. You would be providing exactly less choice to artists, which will translate to less choice for consumers.
Today, we can choose between indie artists and signed artists. Those who want indie artists can find them, and those who want signed artists can find them as well. Now, it honestly escapes me, where is the benefit of removing choice by dictating choices down to other people? Especially since sales figures say that you are advocating removing the more popular part! It simply boggles the mind that anybody could possibly think that this is a good idea!
So, yeah. Your system basically systematises the screwing of artists, whereas now they at least have the option of being screwed over or not.
No, it's not. I've already demonstrated the significant difference in a previous post which you haven't read. I suppose you don't listen to undeniable logic from a troll (another hint).
No they don't. Again, it's been dealt with.
So, what you're essentially saying is that being an artist is only a decent living if you're as mainstream popular as Jay Z?
I don't know about you, but I feel that variety and niche markets are an important part of culture, but I guess you don't care, so long as music follows exclusively your tastes (which it won't, even under your system).
---
Seriously, I would start opening your eyes. There are millions of people willing to financially support the copyright system. While they are still willing to buy signed bands, your system will never take over, no matter how much you close your eyes and say "la la la i cant hear you".
Really? You've found a disproof of god? Link please!
If the conquistadores missed their mark as much as you missed the point, they would have had their butts kicked. Nowhere do I claim that it's unfair. Nowhere do I complain about the speed of change. Somewhere did I say that I had no undue attachment to the current system.
In the depths of your idiocy, you still cling to the assumption that I'm championing an outdated system, or artists or both, despite me actually contradicting that assumption previously. I'm not actually worried about the artists. Y'know why? Because you simply can't maintain a system where the artists get screwed over. Life is tough enough for the majority of them already. As soon as you make it significantly more difficult, 90% of them are going to get up and leave. Maybe the mega rich corporate sellouts might stick around, but that innovative indie band trying to make a break? They're gone.
Argh! It's not about honouring the old system, it's about instituting change in a way that doesn't completely destroy our culture! That's why it must be bloodless.
And there is such a way. I was hinting at it before. It's called the free market.
The way it works is that you, and anyone you can convince (highly unlikely, given your comprehension rate of my post), buy only what you want. Go only to concerts of people who only release free (libre) music. These people are clearly willing to work under your new system, so sticking with them will give you a good idea of what it would be like under that system. You may have a little trouble finding bands like that, but that's only because your current ideas are completely non-viable. You really can't expect anyone else beyond those people to stick around.
Of course, you also have to deal with the decreased variety in music. Piracy, for reasons you probably didn't read in my previous post, is out. This is another thing that we'd be stuck with if you had your way, and spoiled everything for the rest of us.
Oh, and best of all, the free market can accommodate for multiple systems. We have a flourishing FOSS market, which sometimes doesn't even use copyright! Someone had an idea, like you, and created an alternate system, and made it work. Then someone had a better idea, and decided to use the control that copyright afforded to make an even better system. These days, they all coexist. People who prefer whatever system have their choice.
You, too, could have your own ideas come to fruition, but only if others are willing to support them. However, your ideas, as you said so yourself, are not revolutionary, yet there isn't a big market for this kind of thing. People don't want their only source of professional-sounding music to be exclusively live. Most of these patrons supplement their tastes with buying/pirating other less free music sources.
Basically, your idea has failed before you even had it. You're just going to have to deal with it.
Why do I write, when you don't bother to read?
What if their medium is not performance, or being a sellout? Or if they don't produce music/movies? Are you suggesting that what will amount to abolishing professional CD and DVD recording, is actually a positive step for our culture? What do we do when ebook readers become more popular?
Your solution has no foresight, no benefits that we don't already enjoy now, and no flexibility. It's simply a hack to work with our current times and (some) current tastes.
Of course, because recording something is free, and certainly doesn't have any work behind it.
No wonder you don't support copyright. You don't meet the minimum system requirements.
Except without the free ticket to download any song you want, and the artist gets a say in how much he gives away for the sake of advertising.
Radio is the free advertising. The reason why it actually works is because there is no guarantee that the song you want to hear will be on the radio at any given time, and some such songs are impossible to hear (legally) on the radio. There is incentive to buy behind radio play.
Sure, there's incentive to buy behind releasing recordings before concerts, but not nearly as much. It affords too much value to give away for free. Smart artists (that is, artists who don't go out of business) would cripple it as much as possible, probably by severely limiting what they release. Expect only a couple of songs to be released officially, or expect the songs to be poorly produced (to give incentive to see them live).
I see that you haven't noticed that I haven't resorted to name-calling. And why would I, when I have so many cogent and logical arguments to make?
Certainly not, but they certainly are less of an artist when they get a real job to try to survive the perennial income from touring. There's only so many you can do before people lose their excitement over seeing you.
I support copyright precisely because I can't create music (or any other kind of commercially valuable art). I value the talent of others to at least let them name the price of their own work.
Oh, and the fact that you said "music" and not "art" is typical of your tunnel-vision with regard to copyright.
Look, I have no undue attachment to the current system. All I know is that it works for me, and millions upon millions of others. If you can seriously find another system, independent of copyright, that gives me the artworks I want, and prove that it works in a safe way, then I'm in. I'll bear no grudge. If what you say is true, and that the new system is inevitable, then more power to you.
However, I'd
I'm sure creators have already leaned towards "fuck you" themselves. I'm sorry that you can't get everything at a price that you want, when you want, and how you want, but you can still just buy the damn thing, or not. Sorry, them's the brakes: pay for the work of others that you use.
The original idea of championing individual rights has been completely corrupted by greed and affluence. The hoard of self-justifying pirates make sure that the actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $.
Piracy has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to destroy piracy, and educate others on the damage it causes, since our common sense, which is supposed to serve us, seems to be serving nothing but our basest, greediest desires (with our values in tow).
Seriously though, if you have a better system for encouraging creation, then support it, and stop pissing in our system. Some of us don't want to destroy the entire system, and hope that something better will take its place. Start by only dealing with business models you agree with, and lose the "it's our culture, so hand it over" crap. Artists work on these things. It's not about working once and collecting ever after (that's EXTREMELY hard to do), it's about getting paid, one way or another. So I reiterate: find and support another way, or STFU.
Not quite. They can choose which pictures to leave up or take down. They're free to claim whichever photos they like, and encourage the dissemination of the ones they do. This is not what copyright is for.
There's no significant financial benefit in owning these pictures, so I can only agree with the summary: this is for censorship and nothing else.
Blasphemy! Equating need and success is what piracy is all about!
Exactly. It's the other way around.
In the same way that an infant could 'debate with' Mohammed Ali...
Seriously, it's only ends up being a debate if you ignore simple economic truths.
All of the above assumes warrants were issued by appropriate systems, of course. Police need to have at least some faculty to inspect the private, otherwise they're, quite literally, completely and utterly useless.
Wait, isn't this more like police demanding you unlock a door? You can't hide evidence behind a physical lock, so why should a digital lock be different?
I was going to make a snarky remark about how saying that would automatically disqualify you for a vote, but I figured I might as well educate rather than humiliate.
Fallacies are a part of everyday lives. A fallacy can be objectively, mathematically defined, essentially as an argument that can't possibly be true, given that it's hypotheses are true. For example, the argument that goes like this:
* If it rains, I will get wet
* It is raining
* I will get wet
is not a fallacy. An example of a fallacy is:
* Everyone voted republican
* If everyone votes republican, then republicans will have the power to stop gun restrictions
* The republicans want to stop gun restrictions
* Therefore, we will not get gun restrictions
because it is possible to have a republican who supports gun restrictions.
Of course, a fallacy in this sense, while it can be mirrored in Real Life (with some effort), it makes little sense to, because everyone uses fallacies in this sense. Most use them everyday. If we relax the definition of fallacy, then we really have no definition of fallacy (another fallacy right there). Suddenly, barring people from voting is purely subjective, and based on (supposedly fallacious) opinions we don't like. Suddenly, we don't have a democracy any more.
It's the right of everyone to vote. It's a vital part of democracy.
Your comment, in combination with your sig, made me just a little more afraid of my fellow man.
Ah, but where in your in argument there did you use the fact that they were posting as a requirement for their course?
You can argue against them without knowing where they came from, because it's their arguments, not their origins, that are, if not provably wrong, then not falsifiable.
Opinion != argument. The bar is set a little higher on the latter.
I call it valid because, as I see it, an opinion is valid if and only if it hasn't been disproved by a valid argument.
I didn't mean that they're right, just that they use rational thought based on judgement of rational evidence. Intelligent design has some intelligent proponents, who actually can argue their case. And yes, they do refer to evidence.
I, personally, don't see why the students should have to disclose anything. Their opinions are valid (even if their evidence is... er... patchy), and I don't see how knowing who inspired their comments would do anything but open them up for cheap ad hominem shots.
If they're really so wrong, we should be able to demonstrate it without such disclosures.
Perhaps not, but you'd be fool (and a hypocrite) to not prepare for the possibility.