My question... does this represent Gnu thinking on the part of Groupon?
Oh my god you are a moron.
No they are not. Aaron Swartz actually attempted to liberate the data himself.
He also didn't attempt to profit from it. He was acting out of noble purposes to share academic information, much of which is produced or supported by government tax money.
TPB amorally allowed users to break the law if they want. They are no less moral or culpable in this situation than you ISP or Google.
As has been made clear multiple times, their primary and advertised purpose was to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Google indexes the Web and an ISP provides access to the Internet. Those are quite generic in purpose. Learn to think critically instead of just spouting stupid shit that fits your agenda.
Any place could be linked to child porn.
We're not talking about "any place". We're making comparisons to The Pirate Bay, which specializes in copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Now imagine there was a similar site called "The Pedophile Bay" that served the same function for child porn. Are you going to tell me the site isn't profiting off the sexual abuse of children, but merely the consumers of child porn?
The Pirate Bay should be left alone. They didn't do anything wrong. We know very well that they are being made into scapegoats for what their users do.
It's all bullshit. They're parasites making profit off the copyrighted work of others. They are not Aaron Swartz.
(A child porn comparison? Really? Weak, dude, really weak. Maybe you could try for a more accurate and less loaded analogy?)
Maybe you can explain why the comparison is wrong? The argument being made is that the middleman isn't profiting off of the base product.
The Pirate Bay is helping the world see that copyright does not work. They aren't parasites, copyright is a bad business model.
They helped themselves to profits off of somebody else's work. If they were doing it for free, you'd have a case. These guys aren't Aaron Swartz.
The real parasites are the Big Media companies who stole works from the public domain by extending copyright again and again, despite that flying in the face of the public interest.
They can both be parasites. It's not an either/or. You'll note that The Pirate Bay isn't about sharing old content that would have been out of copyright in saner times.
They helped cause this backlash through their greed.
Somewhat true, but that's also a convenient excuse for people who just want to pirate stuff.
And, artists will not starve without copyright! There are other ways to earn a living from art.
Perhaps. That's not an argument I was engaging in.
Why aren't you complaining about them?
Sometimes I do. In this case I'm pushing back against the false narratives surrounding The Pirate Bay.
Most of all, these antiquated laws are harming us all.
I would love to see copyright reform, preferably via a much shorter copyright length, increasing registration fees to maintain copyright, etc. However, I'm not going to defend parasites that do their best to thwart copyright and take advantage of the work of others.
Interesting. I'm surprised that one, that they do that, and two, that they get away with it. I wonder if they've ever been sued over it? Maybe it's just a loophole in the law.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Pirate Bay catered to sharing copyrighted material like TV shows and movies, and they gave a middle finger to anybody that told them to remove links. Google is a generic search engine and removes links to copyrighted material when notified.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
It's bullshit. You wouldn't say a dealer in child porn isn't profiting off of sexual abuse of children, and you wouldn't say a dealer in ivory isn't profiting off of elephant poachers. The Pirate Bay was not agnostic. They catered to sharing copyrighted material and were adamant about not removing links to copyrighted material. I'll give them credit for having balls, but they were parasites, nothing more.
Also: Wikipedia suggests that the 'D' in "Système D" can stand for "démerde"
Movies could be ultra realistic and show the true horrors of war. They don't though, because that would give half the audience PTSD. The directors are responsible and carefully decide what to show. Why is the same restraint not used in Hitman? Why even have missions where it is possible to do this? Why facilitate it?
I'd say, "Now you've lost all credibility," but you already lost all credibility with your bullshit advertising argument. Are you seriously defending movies with regards to this kind of criticism? There's plenty of the same tropes in movies.
Besides that fact, your "responsible" example is on the morally wrong side. One of the biggest criticisms of war movies is that they don't show the true horrors of war. That's why a movie like Saving Private Ryan was a breakthrough and acclaimed for not giving a sanitized, Hollywood version of war.
And there's no way I'm going to get bent out of shape about Hitman when a mountain is being made about a molehill, when the entire game is about a hitman. The whole game is a fucking murder simulator, and I'm supposed to get upset that one tiny part gives you the opportunity to kill some strippers?
The point if A is bad, B also being bad doesn't make A more acceptable. Your argument is based on accepting the violence is okay, but actually violence that objectifies male characters is a problem too and has been called out as such.
When I initially gave you a chance to make this argument, you didn't. You just jumped straight to a supposed strawman from Thunderf00t. It seems doubtful you really had a problem with violence in video games until the comparison was made.
Try the second part, it explains this aspect in detail and shows the advertising
Please. Those were advertisements for Hitman: Blood Money, which came out in 2006. The mission discussed in the previous video was from Hitman: Absolution, 2012. Claiming, "The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes," after a period of 6 years, is incredibly disingenuous.
And let's be clear about the details here. In the first video, half-naked women are dragged around on screen while Anita says, "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters." In the advertsing from 6 years earlier, we are shown static shots of executed women in provocative poses.
Different version of the game. Different year. Different context (non-target civilians you are encouraged to bypass versus static shots of targeted hits not being interacted with). Different roles (designers versus advertisers). And you're giving Thunderf00t shit for strawman arguments? At least Anita didn't directly claim the clip from the first video was a fulfillment from the advertising shown in the second.
Oh, and one more thing on the advertising: "The game is advertised as allowing you to kill hot women and pose their bodies", that's another stretch on your part. The women in the advertisements are sprawled out in death poses. Yes, they try to make them look sexy, but there's no indication of the Hitman having posed them.
If you have to misrepresent like this, you've got a problem.
I'd also point out that people doing that sort of thing are unlikely to post video of their actions to YouTube.
*snort* What YouTube do you watch?
Anita's point is entirely accurate. The game mechanics give you the tools to treat murdered characters that way. The room with the strippers offers you plenty of ways to sneak up on them, and ways to hide their bodies.
Entirely accurate, except, *cough*, that there's a discouragement that fits in with the rest of the game for doing so, that the easier route chosen by 3/4 of playthroughs missed them completely, and not a single case has been shown of a player killing them, while many other cases of them not being killed are shown. Their bodies are also treated the same as any other objectified body in the game. But yes, otherwise entirely accurate.
Note that this point is not made in isolation about Hitman only. Other games have mechanics that objectify female characters.
I'm not even disputing this. I agreed with it. But my point was, in discussing this example, if you're going to call somebody out on a strawman, get your shit right.
I thought I did address your point. It isn't okay to use lazy tropes that portray women as objects for sexual gratification even after death, and violence against men or that it appeals to men is not a reasonable justification.
No, you didn't address my point. You ignored the violence angle all-together, and gave me one example that doesn't even check out once I investigated it (per my other comment).
o Restart mission