Yet again its forced outrage against basically something which is common sense
*sighs*... I hate these phrases - faux outrage, forced outrage, since they are used in the least applicable places. Misleading outrage isn't forced - it's still misleading, but it's still real. I's like when you mishear that somebody was banging your GF, and you momentarily get pissed before the person repeats themselves... the outrage in that split second was no less real.
It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases
Personally, just a side note, I've seen people use that alone to justify the position of it being theft - it annoys the hell outta me since the criterion those people use is idiotic - legitimate, legal competition does the same, but their reasoning would label it such. Heh, sidetracks from the discussion at hand, pay no mind.
...but all Steam users have agreed to abide by specific online conduct and not to use cheats.
Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.
This wouldn't even be a Constitutional challenge. A plane is private property
Exactly, so why should congress make the law instead of leaving it up to the airlines?
(Hint: READ the fucking article!!!)
Fuck it becoming a norm.
Fine, to which FB will reply "Read the TOS/EULA" and then win.
Only in a world where it being in a TOS automatically makes it legal and unchallengeable, which this is only if you are an idiot.
Not saying this is one of those times, but whether they win or lose is not based on it being in the TOS, but it being in there + either FB being able to prove it is legal, or the plaintiffs being able to argue its illegality. TOses, contracts, have been deemed either in whole or in part illegal/void before.
The irony is that most of the posters attacking the USA, calling them Nazis (as in Godwin's Law) and vowing never to visit, refuse to reveal their home countries
Irony how? And you do know that all that Godwin's law states is that as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of mentioning Nazis, Nazi Germany, etc increases - and that it is only the corollary that actually attempts to make use of the law to set forth any judgements - illogically too, IMO - about such uses?
Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.
NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.
A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything"
Pro-piracy, or a response against the act of comparing it to literal theft? Those are not the same thing [being pro-piracy, using a statement to express the idea that an analogy is bad] in of itself.
Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?
When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.