Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Two Wrongs (Score 1) 198

You go first: prove that the second wrong is actually a wrong, and that the first person to do the work to produce something should be allowed to keep the end result even if the second person took similar steps to make a similar product.
Why should copyright be allowed to exist in the first place? What does being essential or not have to do with anything? One could argue that unless you are making something that is essential, you don't have the right to anything.

Comment Re:work for free (Score 1) 198

I don't know one developer that isn't paid for their work.

How much software does one have to write to be a "developer"? Is it just writing software, or is there some other criteria that makes a person a developer, in your eyes?

I've written several programs that I haven't expected to get paid for. has plenty of programs none of the writers expect payment for. I could show you more, but that should suffice. Galleon who makes QB64 itself, does not get paid for it.

I doubt you speak to very many people who write software about whether or not they write any programs for free.
Also, you ignore the fact that the people writing software to break DRM usually do it for free, though I'm not sure about what your definition of developer is, so in your mind they may not be developers.

Indie devs are different as they put up the work up front hoping to get paid later (identical model to self employment).

No, that's never how I worked freelance. We agree on the payment up front. Sure, the agreed upon money is paid upon services rendered, but there are restaurants that work on the same principal, agree to the price first and then pay at the end of the meal.

I think's that's a valid way of functioning.

You seem to think that it is the only valid way of functioning, but on contemplation I don't think it is a valid way of functioning, because it says that copyright is not your problem when wearing a customer hat. I also don't think the value you place in ensuring obeying the law is not a valid way of thinking. is a relevant read, though it interferes with copy and paste. In it, he argues that people always have the right to disobey the law on two accounts. First obedience of the law does not follow as a necessity from the reasons we might choose to obey it and second the law infringes on our autonomy in making moral judgments. says some philosophers now deny that law is entitled to all the authority it claims for itself, even when the legal system is legitimate and reasonably just.
I'm afraid the Wikipedia article on mercy does not explain how you connect mercy with paying someone a minimum wage for what they do. The article on an honor system is more illuminative on your way of thinking, but this line:
A person engaged in an honor system has a strong negative concept of breaking or going against it. The negatives may include community shame, loss of status, loss of a personal sense of integrity and pride or in extreme situations, banishment from one's community.
would seem to indicate that we are not on an honor system.
I did not say that mercy always has better outcomes than other things, just that it sometimes does and is always unfair. which is sufficient to prove your assertion, not playing fair = worst experience down the road false. I also said fairness is a broken concept, which you chose to ignore, but is more to the heart of the problem, which is that any decision making based on the concept of fairness is invalid.

I totally agree that copyrights are a huge issue

Except when you are a customer apparently.

If you don't agree with the companies practices you can avoid their products.

I'm trying to understand what makes something a company's product in your mind. If a company chooses to sell something after it has entered the public domain, is it still their product? A lot of food products completely wrapped get thrown in the dumpster. Is it still their product and therefore stealing to go dumpster diving? What about if a software company throws media with a copy of their software/video in a dumpster? What about when it no longer offers it for sale?
The hammer illustration doesn't work because you don't pay for the cost of developing a hammer but instead the incremental cost of making one more hammer.

Comment Re:work for free (Score 1) 198

The reason that Slashdot can both be made up of software developers and have a view that encourages not paying for software and entertainment, is that when money is on the line for them, they get paid as the work is made, and then don't get paid more unless they do more work. The situation with entertainment materials is that for whatever reason, they do the work and then expect to get paid after the fact over and over again without doing more work.

Furthermore, the software developers do software work in addition to the work they get paid to do, for free, and copyright interferes by saying that even if you do work to make something, if someone else did something similar first, they have the wherewithal to stop you from doing things with the results of your work.

You also have a view of how mercy works that I am completely unfamiliar with. Also, your concept of a honor system.

People don't go breaking into dealerships because they want to get the car they can't afford.

People do however go to third parties that have already bought a car, had used it for awhile and then for whatever reason decided to sell it. Copyright protection can interfere with ability though, so no, it's not the same at all.

The argument is not that copyright holders make too much money but that they are stealing from the public domain, and society would be better off if they stop making stuff and using copyright to force others to stop making stuff that is similar.
I countered your assertion that "Not playing fair = worst experience down the road." with the statement that fairness is a broken concept and gave an example and you have yet to refute that statement choosing instead to focus on the mercy bit.

Comment Re:work for free (Score 1) 198

Not playing fair = worst experience down the road.

No, there are plenty of examples where not playing fair yields better outcomes. Mercy, for example. Fairness is a broken concept anyways. Some people think it's completely fair for everyone to go to hell. Just as long as everyone is treated the same, the worst outcome is completely fair.

Once all games are DRM you'll either quit using their products or you'll start paying.

I don't force companies to adopt DRM, that may be an option for them, but an equally valid option is not to produce anything, which I endorse for people who want to make what I do illegal. I don't infringe on copyright on games so much as I do on video and audio. However, there are plenty of people out there to get around DRM for a lot of things. If I really feel that the best way to get something that is a duplicate of something somebody is selling, which is a more correct description, by going somewhere else, I do it.
I buy lots of games in bundles from places like Humble Bundle and Indie Gala. There are many things that buying, (sometimes used, and some copyright holders want money from that sale as well) is the right way to go for me, but I have not heard any convincing reason to take infringement off the table. I now have enough things obtained legally that I may not ever get around to using them.

Then there's the MIT/BSD licensing model, which seems to get ignored by people.
But there's lots of legally free stuff out there: has a lot of people in forums uploading stuff they made with it for free, and I think FreeBASIC has the same situation. Steam even has a whole section of single player games available for free. Entire massively multiplayer games are free to play and make money off of in-game trinkets. YouTube, broadcast TV and radio has commercials but they're essentially for free. Amazon and iTunes even have free sections.

Our society is plague with rules and blockages because of people who care about some people more than others, is an improvement but the situation is a lot more complicated than that.

Comment Re:no moral ground (Score 1) 198

So who do you think you are telling someone that they have no moral ground to stand on? You think your morals are the only game in town? I don't see how the only ethical response when a company produces a bad product is to decline to give them your money, because very often, the only way to figure out if the company has produced a bad product is to hand over your money first. As for Steam DRM, it comes with the ability for you to get all your games back if everything goes south and you lose your hard drives and backups.
I don't get what you mean by anything else you do is on your head, because everything you do is on your head, so to speak.

Comment Re:Get back to me (Score 1) 198

No, how about you get back to me when you can demonstrate to me that my morals are somehow insufficient to ensure the best outcome, and are therefore wrong. I don't deal with the concept of "rights" very much, just what is the most efficient way of getting me what I want, which is an ongoing process. If people focused more on what the most efficient way of getting themselves what they want instead of trying to convince others they are somehow wrong, I think we would all be better off. Instead you want to convince me I should be the one to change because someone else might not be getting what they want out of life.

Comment Re:work for free (Score 0) 198

And if they want to get paid it is up to them to figure out how to do so. Why should anybody else be responsible for whether or not they get paid. You say don't buy it, but what you really mean is don't acquire it. Won't they either lower their prices or make games that are more affordable whether or not you acquire whatever on your terms? I acquire a lot of things for free without infringing on copyright, I acquire things that I feel like shelling out money is a reasonable part of the process of acquiring it, and I do some copyright infringement. Nowhere in my consideration for all of this is whether or not other people in the chain are getting anything. That is for them to figure out. All these people need to take responsibility for themselves.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 456

I don't see a link nor a one sentence summary in your previous post. I tried to see if a malformed link ate it, but got caught in Slashdot's page rendering scheme that doesn't show the actual post when I select inspect element in Chrome, though between the two I'm not sure where the fault lies.

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 1, Insightful) 725

So censoring people who deny the Holocaust even happened is due to Germany's guilt, how. I can see how if Germany wanted to sweep the Holocaust under the rug and pretend it didn't happen was due to guilt, but in your mind censoring those who say it never happened is also due to guilt? Are you thinking they feel guilty about it and to make up for their guilt they want to prevent people who say it never happened from spreading the message? How is that hypocritical?

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.