4 ms·

Think of the children! Give me a break with the theatrics. You're basically saying "doesn't my extraordinary case justify copyright infringement / theft?" No,

by criley2 13y ago

Think of the children! Give me a break with the theatrics. You're basically saying "doesn't my extraordinary case justify copyright infringement / theft?" No, it doesn't. It justifies you getting off your rear and making resources for 12 year old kids to learn and play and experience FOR FREE. The existence of commercial products doesn't negate free stuff. So why not let the 12 year olds use any of the free and open source and widely available stuff? If you think that the stuff produced for free isn't as good as the copyrighted stuff, isn't that itself a useful observation of the effects of copyright? Instead of using those 12 year olds as a prop piece for a bad argument, put your money where your mouth is and go out there and produce content for them that will inspire them, without forcing them to break copyright to be inspired.

belorn 13y ago
Give me a break. Do you think that racism is justified just because you let black people ride in the back of the buss? Arguments that the back of the buss is equally good as the front of the buss is not good enough. If you think that putting in nicer seats will be a useful observation of the effects of racism, think again. Instead of using those fixed up back seats as a bad argument in favor of racism, be honest with yourself. You simply want to continue a society that separate one part of society (black, poor, kids), from you (white, rich, old enough to be working with a high paid job). Btw, I do produce content for free. My tax money however goes to support the restriction of 12 years old who want to learn physics. I think that is not the compromise that copyright is intended to be, or should exist in a moral society.
- lelandbatey 13y ago
  I think you've wandered a bit far from the original point with this talk of racism. More back to the first, I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing. That means I can make something, and then I can require people to pay to use it/see it/experience it. And I don't think we can get away from that. I also don't think we have can say that violating that right is an act of integrity.
  - belorn 13y ago
    If you create something, you are perfectly fine in dictating the terms of it. I just don't agree that you should require society to punish children who want to learn. Your dictating ends at that point, since its not a good compromise for society to make. If you still want to continue dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing the thing you made, you got to do it without the help from the government. You want to get paid, and you want the governments help to do so. Fine. Make a compromise that benefit both side and do no harm to groups we don't expect to be working at any rate. It should not be such a hard thing.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing. I have to disagree 100%. Once you publish something you lose all effective control over it. It is only this legal fiction we call copyright that gives copyright owners any sort of control. But even maximalist copyright regimes are full of more holes than swiss cheese - if anything, the more they ratchet up the controls the more people seek out the holes. It is human nature to share knowledge, modern copyright is about fighting human nature and that never works out (c.f. the war on drugs).
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      Once you publish something you lose all effective control over it. If I'm trying to decide whether to publish something or not, this is not the argument that's going to make me give the green light.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact, like saying water is wet. There is an implicit assumption in your position that copyright based compensation is the only method of compensation. It isn't. It wasn't even the dominant method until the last couple of centuries when technology made it feasible. Now that technology has moved on, our economic systems need to keep up.
loceng 13y ago
Ever hear the phrase it takes a village/community to raise a child? Do we punish a child because perhaps his parents don't have the skills and knowledge from a lack of life experiences - perhaps because they didn't have access to such material - therefore continuing the cycle? You have to look at what end goal you want to achieve, and then decide what systems to have in place.

by criley2 13y ago

belorn 13y ago

Give me a break. Do you think that racism is justified just because you let black people ride in the back of the buss? Arguments that the back of the buss is equally good as the front of the buss is not good enough. If you think that putting in nicer seats will be a useful observation of the effects of racism, think again. Instead of using those fixed up back seats as a bad argument in favor of racism, be honest with yourself. You simply want to continue a society that separate one part of society (black, poor, kids), from you (white, rich, old enough to be working with a high paid job). Btw, I do produce content for free. My tax money however goes to support the restriction of 12 years old who want to learn physics. I think that is not the compromise that copyright is intended to be, or should exist in a moral society.

lelandbatey 13y ago
I think you've wandered a bit far from the original point with this talk of racism. More back to the first, I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing. That means I can make something, and then I can require people to pay to use it/see it/experience it. And I don't think we can get away from that. I also don't think we have can say that violating that right is an act of integrity.
- belorn 13y ago
  If you create something, you are perfectly fine in dictating the terms of it. I just don't agree that you should require society to punish children who want to learn. Your dictating ends at that point, since its not a good compromise for society to make. If you still want to continue dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing the thing you made, you got to do it without the help from the government. You want to get paid, and you want the governments help to do so. Fine. Make a compromise that benefit both side and do no harm to groups we don't expect to be working at any rate. It should not be such a hard thing.
- Amadou 13y ago
  I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing. I have to disagree 100%. Once you publish something you lose all effective control over it. It is only this legal fiction we call copyright that gives copyright owners any sort of control. But even maximalist copyright regimes are full of more holes than swiss cheese - if anything, the more they ratchet up the controls the more people seek out the holes. It is human nature to share knowledge, modern copyright is about fighting human nature and that never works out (c.f. the war on drugs).
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Once you publish something you lose all effective control over it. If I'm trying to decide whether to publish something or not, this is not the argument that's going to make me give the green light.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact, like saying water is wet. There is an implicit assumption in your position that copyright based compensation is the only method of compensation. It isn't. It wasn't even the dominant method until the last couple of centuries when technology made it feasible. Now that technology has moved on, our economic systems need to keep up.

loceng 13y ago

Ever hear the phrase it takes a village/community to raise a child? Do we punish a child because perhaps his parents don't have the skills and knowledge from a lack of life experiences - perhaps because they didn't have access to such material - therefore continuing the cycle? You have to look at what end goal you want to achieve, and then decide what systems to have in place.