So, you're saying, because slashdot says so, it's OK to side with the pirate bay, and try to force companies to stop trying to minimise piracy, while at the same time, scream blue murder if anyone, especially big bad GPL code-stealing companies, rip them off.
Nothing personal, but I think I'll stick with logic and relative objectivity rather than "going with the flow" and lynch mobs.
If you have a draconian law, you break it, and you wish to protest, you have two choices:
1) Accept the consequences, while protesting, i.e. civil disobedience, or 2) Reject the consequences, while protesting, and make yourself out to be a whiny thief who likes the crime, but not the time.
If you don't have a draconian law, there's no problem. So basically, I agree with the GP recommendation.
Or it could that the rational part of Slashdot's audience never actually supported anyone's right to download copyrighted material without paying, but objected their to their hijacking and circumventing the legal system to protect said material.
I don't know if I can identify objectively which is the "rational" part of slashdot, but I certainly have seen some high-moderated comments that say it's OK to download, so long as it's crap, and some that say that copyright should adapt to people downloading stuff for free. Slashdot certainly hasn't been entirely anti-downloading these past months.
Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, be aware that these articles on/. are often very biased against the RIAA, so the article may be light on details about the due process he may or may not have received, and perhaps even to the point of exaggeration.
You seem to fail to understand the function of taxes, the term 'arbitrarily' and the use of logic
OK, since you failed to point out anything wrong with my post, and you seem to think, for some god knows reason, that because you used the word "arbitrarily", that there's no specific purpose behind taxes. Maybe it's just my failing at understanding logic, but could you explain to me behind how the specifics of your semantics explains, well, anything at all? Let alone motivations behind government policy?
You also have a similarly asinine lack of understanding of the distinction between "purpose" and "function". I was talking about purpose, but even talking about function, taxes are still used to maintain the ground you live on, through enforcement of environmental protection, so you're still wrong, even while burning your own, tailor-made strawman.
Please try again.
You keep saying that. It becomes more refreshingly original, bitingly witty, and devastatingly effective every time you say it. God knows, it's consistently been the most insightful part of your post.
Why do people hold hardware compatibility against the operating system? Don't people realize that Linux actually has much better hardware support than any OS out there?
It's probably unfair to hold Linux's lack of support from hardware (and software, for that matter) manufacturers against them, but in the practical sense, it's unavoidable. You tell people just how well Linux handles hardware out of the box compared to windows until your tongue turns blue, but if they try to use Linux, and their hardware support fails, then they're not going to use it, and it will reflect badly on Linux as a desktop "solution".
Taxes are collected arbitrarily and not for any one particular burden.
Correct. What's your point again?
Oh right, that this somehow means that we aren't charged for specific burdens, and therefore we should start charging people again for specific burdens. Well, I'm guessing not people people but rather companies you don't personally like.
True. But look at it from the insurance companies (or gov'ts) point of view. The total cost of all accidents is the number of accidents times the cost per accident. Speed affects the cost per accident to a much greater degree than their probability of occurrence. To the individual, its more important to avoid an accident altogether. But the insurance industry wants to lower the overall cost.
It's not just the government and insurance companies' view, it's mine as well. While people insist on being idiots on the road, at least we can hope to reduce the mortality/serious injury rate of the accidents, and even if not that, then we can keep everyone's insurance premiums low if the cost of said accidents are low.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I really, really don't want to pay for other people's stupidity, either in a catastrophic lump sum, or in monthly cash instalments for the rest of my life.
You know what would be nice? If everyone, especially large trucks, drove under the speed limit. Then we could overtake if necessary (like in that situation), while remaining comfortably within the bounds of the law.
In fact, trucks, on freeways, are limited to 10km/h under the speed limit in Australia. So this hopefully shouldn't pose much of a problem.
Hey, that wouldn't be so hard! You could just use a radar-like device to detect proximity to a surface ahead, and compare with speed. If you're going over 50km/h, and the distance between you and something solid is less than a meter, it's a pretty safe bet that you're either tailgating or milliseconds away from an accident.
I have a feeling that nothing will be reported back. Why? Because it's still useful without it. One very common cause of speeding is the driver not being aware, or not caring what their speedometer says. If there's an override switch, that will at least eliminate accidental speeding.
And besides, taking in data from cars is a just another expense, and all it does is mark a person with the possibility of speeding, but does not prove the act itself. It would be pretty useless really.
The best way to drive is to drive in a manner that is safe for the road conditions presented to you.
How right you are! Now if only people would drive in a manner that is safe for the road conditions, and not rush to get to that appointment they're perpetually late for, or just for sheer kicks at other people's expense, then we wouldn't need those speed zones, or police enforcing them!
How about the opposite... how anout as municipalities, we band together and start charging them rent on our ditches and land that they are running the cable through.
You feel entitled to a copy of a DVD on your computer, but that isn't what the company is offering (it offers a locked-down DVD, one such that the distribution of tools to unlock it is illegal).
You feel entitled to any computer game you want being playable without the CD (is this even a piracy issue?).
You feel entitled to own that out-of-print book, that TV show from foreign countries, those unreleased movies/music.
Is their any justification for this sense of entitlement? Probably not. Everything mentioned is a luxury, and "I have to have it this way" has never been a sound moral or legal argument.
Does this make piracy bad in these situations, probably not. The situations cited range from little damage to no damage.
I'm just worried that entitlement over relatively harmless things will (or has previously) extended to entitlement over big things, like entitlement over unlimited free access to any artwork.
And when they are beaten in the marketplace they go running to their friends in government to strongarm their competition.
Wait. What competition? What strong-arming? As far as I can remember from reading slashdot, one of the most anti-**AA sites on the internet, the one and only drum they have been banging is the anti-piracy drum. I don't remember hearing of any government help to eliminate legitimate competition.
I do, however, remember them petitioning (successfully) for government help to eliminate a practice that does not so much compete with them, as drain their profits, while making absolutely no contribution to the artistic pool, or the community at large. Not to mention it's also illegal.
Perhaps, after they get over the hurdle of their profits drained by greedy buggers, they might target their legitimate competition (that seems like their kind of MO), but right now, pirates aren't even giving them a chance to step off their high horse.
The reality would be that much of the software that's in use illegally is by people that wouldn't have purchased it in the first case. So if it was completely impossible to pirate the software then it wouldn't be purchased at all.
It's part of the same reality that people use this to falsely justify their downloads, and deflate the value that they perceived they pirated. It seems sensible to err on the side of caution here.
Notice that the GP didn't support said organisations. He was against piracy, which is a problem independent of said organisations, and which does deprive artists of their rights.
It's a frighteningly common conflation here on slashdot. How would you respond if I told you that if you're against the BSA, you just want all software for yourself for free? Exactly.
Why is trade now called "fleecing"? Aren't we "fleecing" the companies in return when we use the goods or services that we pay for? Perhaps you "fleece" your employer, because, at the end of the day, you get a portion of his money (and let's quietly forget to mention how much you worked for it).
Your "erosion" of "cultural naivety" seems like little more than certain lone nuts replacing common words for established principles with more inflammatory ones.
No seriously, exactly how many people do you think Microsoft pays by the hour to browse slashdot and post pro-microsoft stuff? How much would one guy posting a few comments an hour, with no guarantee that he will be modded up, benefit microsoft financially? Seriously? Are you really so out of touch as to think that anyone who posts that Vista is working OK for them in the middle of a traditional MS-bashing is an astroturfer?
OK, OK. Calm down. You haven't offended me. I don't think you're stalking me. I was trying to make some idle conversation while keeping the mood light, but obviously it isn't working. You seem like a decent enough guy.
Ha! Well then, unfortunately, you wasted your mod points for nothing. I realise that electronic police states, while perhaps not quite as serious as as a physical police state, is very serious, and deserves the name. My post was just a jab at those people who think that just because something is intangible, it's trivial. Specifically, intangible property in the form of IP.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying, because slashdot says so, it's OK to side with the pirate bay, and try to force companies to stop trying to minimise piracy, while at the same time, scream blue murder if anyone, especially big bad GPL code-stealing companies, rip them off.
Nothing personal, but I think I'll stick with logic and relative objectivity rather than "going with the flow" and lynch mobs.
If you have a draconian law, you break it, and you wish to protest, you have two choices:
1) Accept the consequences, while protesting, i.e. civil disobedience, or
2) Reject the consequences, while protesting, and make yourself out to be a whiny thief who likes the crime, but not the time.
If you don't have a draconian law, there's no problem. So basically, I agree with the GP recommendation.
I don't know if I can identify objectively which is the "rational" part of slashdot, but I certainly have seen some high-moderated comments that say it's OK to download, so long as it's crap, and some that say that copyright should adapt to people downloading stuff for free. Slashdot certainly hasn't been entirely anti-downloading these past months.
Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, be aware that these articles on /. are often very biased against the RIAA, so the article may be light on details about the due process he may or may not have received, and perhaps even to the point of exaggeration.
What if he informally confessed, for example?
If you insist on being a troll, you could at least be an original troll, or failing that, an interesting troll.
Please, if you have a shred of dignity left, don't try again.
OK, since you failed to point out anything wrong with my post, and you seem to think, for some god knows reason, that because you used the word "arbitrarily", that there's no specific purpose behind taxes. Maybe it's just my failing at understanding logic, but could you explain to me behind how the specifics of your semantics explains, well, anything at all? Let alone motivations behind government policy?
You also have a similarly asinine lack of understanding of the distinction between "purpose" and "function". I was talking about purpose, but even talking about function, taxes are still used to maintain the ground you live on, through enforcement of environmental protection, so you're still wrong, even while burning your own, tailor-made strawman.
You keep saying that. It becomes more refreshingly original, bitingly witty, and devastatingly effective every time you say it. God knows, it's consistently been the most insightful part of your post.
It's probably unfair to hold Linux's lack of support from hardware (and software, for that matter) manufacturers against them, but in the practical sense, it's unavoidable. You tell people just how well Linux handles hardware out of the box compared to windows until your tongue turns blue, but if they try to use Linux, and their hardware support fails, then they're not going to use it, and it will reflect badly on Linux as a desktop "solution".
Correct. What's your point again?
Oh right, that this somehow means that we aren't charged for specific burdens, and therefore we should start charging people again for specific burdens. Well, I'm guessing not people people but rather companies you don't personally like.
We're all clear? Good.
OK, so let's limit braking capacity and we can all go home!
... that is, if any of us make it there.
Taxes apply to everyone, because everyone takes a slice of the country's land. They apply to telcoms for the same reason.
It's not just the government and insurance companies' view, it's mine as well. While people insist on being idiots on the road, at least we can hope to reduce the mortality/serious injury rate of the accidents, and even if not that, then we can keep everyone's insurance premiums low if the cost of said accidents are low.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I really, really don't want to pay for other people's stupidity, either in a catastrophic lump sum, or in monthly cash instalments for the rest of my life.
You know what would be nice? If everyone, especially large trucks, drove under the speed limit. Then we could overtake if necessary (like in that situation), while remaining comfortably within the bounds of the law.
In fact, trucks, on freeways, are limited to 10km/h under the speed limit in Australia. So this hopefully shouldn't pose much of a problem.
Hey, that wouldn't be so hard! You could just use a radar-like device to detect proximity to a surface ahead, and compare with speed. If you're going over 50km/h, and the distance between you and something solid is less than a meter, it's a pretty safe bet that you're either tailgating or milliseconds away from an accident.
I have a feeling that nothing will be reported back. Why? Because it's still useful without it. One very common cause of speeding is the driver not being aware, or not caring what their speedometer says. If there's an override switch, that will at least eliminate accidental speeding.
And besides, taking in data from cars is a just another expense, and all it does is mark a person with the possibility of speeding, but does not prove the act itself. It would be pretty useless really.
How right you are! Now if only people would drive in a manner that is safe for the road conditions, and not rush to get to that appointment they're perpetually late for, or just for sheer kicks at other people's expense, then we wouldn't need those speed zones, or police enforcing them!
We do. It's called "taxes".
Ah, those are perfect examples of entitlement.
You feel entitled to a copy of a DVD on your computer, but that isn't what the company is offering (it offers a locked-down DVD, one such that the distribution of tools to unlock it is illegal).
You feel entitled to any computer game you want being playable without the CD (is this even a piracy issue?).
You feel entitled to own that out-of-print book, that TV show from foreign countries, those unreleased movies/music.
Is their any justification for this sense of entitlement? Probably not. Everything mentioned is a luxury, and "I have to have it this way" has never been a sound moral or legal argument.
Does this make piracy bad in these situations, probably not. The situations cited range from little damage to no damage.
I'm just worried that entitlement over relatively harmless things will (or has previously) extended to entitlement over big things, like entitlement over unlimited free access to any artwork.
Wait. What competition? What strong-arming? As far as I can remember from reading slashdot, one of the most anti-**AA sites on the internet, the one and only drum they have been banging is the anti-piracy drum. I don't remember hearing of any government help to eliminate legitimate competition.
I do, however, remember them petitioning (successfully) for government help to eliminate a practice that does not so much compete with them, as drain their profits, while making absolutely no contribution to the artistic pool, or the community at large. Not to mention it's also illegal.
Perhaps, after they get over the hurdle of their profits drained by greedy buggers, they might target their legitimate competition (that seems like their kind of MO), but right now, pirates aren't even giving them a chance to step off their high horse.
It's part of the same reality that people use this to falsely justify their downloads, and deflate the value that they perceived they pirated. It seems sensible to err on the side of caution here.
Notice that the GP didn't support said organisations. He was against piracy, which is a problem independent of said organisations, and which does deprive artists of their rights.
It's a frighteningly common conflation here on slashdot. How would you respond if I told you that if you're against the BSA, you just want all software for yourself for free? Exactly.
Why is trade now called "fleecing"? Aren't we "fleecing" the companies in return when we use the goods or services that we pay for? Perhaps you "fleece" your employer, because, at the end of the day, you get a portion of his money (and let's quietly forget to mention how much you worked for it).
Your "erosion" of "cultural naivety" seems like little more than certain lone nuts replacing common words for established principles with more inflammatory ones.
No seriously, exactly how many people do you think Microsoft pays by the hour to browse slashdot and post pro-microsoft stuff? How much would one guy posting a few comments an hour, with no guarantee that he will be modded up, benefit microsoft financially? Seriously? Are you really so out of touch as to think that anyone who posts that Vista is working OK for them in the middle of a traditional MS-bashing is an astroturfer?
I, for one, do not welcome our new aesthetically aware computer overlords. I get enough of that from the chicks at my uni.
OK, OK. Calm down. You haven't offended me. I don't think you're stalking me. I was trying to make some idle conversation while keeping the mood light, but obviously it isn't working. You seem like a decent enough guy.
Relax! I can take criticism!
Ha! Well then, unfortunately, you wasted your mod points for nothing. I realise that electronic police states, while perhaps not quite as serious as as a physical police state, is very serious, and deserves the name. My post was just a jab at those people who think that just because something is intangible, it's trivial. Specifically, intangible property in the form of IP.