What? that's just rubbish, the exact same problem happens on Reddit to a much worse extent.

at least on Slashdot if you disagree with the main point for a good reason you don't get modded into oblivion. on Reddit the voting system is just to mark how interesting something is, here its used to mark how relevant and accurate something is.

You're comparing news editorial site that discusses modern events, to an information dumping ground that's being bastardized into a "news" site.

How hard to people press the screens on their touch devices? seriously you barely need to make contact?

we do this in our country (plain packaging for cigarettes). its a slippery slope, now you're not even allowed to show clients the range of cigarettes they want to purchase.. outright banning isn't too far off IMO.

3 Australia, the nanny state. (at least nanny told us not to waste all our money on a dodgy market, so although we have problems they aren't anything compared to Americas)

Unless that risk is entirely at the disgression of a 3rd party.

I checked, there isn't.. don't verify that though, you don't need to. I double checked.

not as unsenosred as you think

there is some minor filtering at the moment, but that won't last long, major filtering will be implemented soon.

he would also probably be stripped and searched too.

blaming the victim if i ever heard. regardless of weather its "custom" to ignore the disgressions of the government, doesn't

*digital

because thats where the risk to the industry is.. so yes, this is a "new" problem almost entirely unrelated to manually making analog copies of reduced quality.

this only works if you start making different shoes. legally you wouldn't be able to duplicate the shoes and just sell them as they would be considered counterfeit.

the only reason this is justified, is because only the biggest players can produce the shoes cheaper than the original manufacturer, the power slips up if you allow copying, only the bigger players can out produce the smaller ones.

however, if everyone was capable of making shoes (or for a much better example, following a recipe to make a meal), that would mean the power slips more towards the consumers and smaller players (like the professionals in the industry, for example chiefs), which IMO, justifies dropping copyright (like how there is no copyright for recipes) copyright is to avoid monopolies of power to allow the free market to encourage innovation, at the expense of the other smaller players having flexibility with content.

if that copyright is preventing a slip towards empowering the smaller entities (who innovate much more than the big entities) to maintain the monopoly of the biggest players... its sort of exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve with the laws.

100% agree with your point though, nothing morally wrong with copying a pattern, you don't need to owe someone something because it already existed elsewhere.

so what your saying is... cookie cutter responses would be wildly distributed, but custom work, specific work or low volume high quality work would need to be paid for upfront before it can exist..
Compared to now where cookie cutter responses have the financial support of the masses so they also have high quality and a distributed price tag, which reduce the demand for custom and specific work... which means less professionals and more monopolies thanks to reduced demand in the custom and once of sectors (the biggest driver of small business, which is the backbone of all modern economies).

yeah, i don't see the down side. i earn more money as a professional in the industry if there is no value in over-engineering a product to suite everyone (and take my customers out from under my feet), the average professional stands to make more money in the industry.

100%!

I'm entitled to line up my 1's and 0's however i desire and for whatever reason. You're not entitled to money just because they match something you came up with first if you parse them through a whole bunch of conversion processes.

musicians are entitled to whatever was agreed to transfer the digital information to the 3rd party. if there is no agreement then there is no entitlement, i never signed an agreement to say "yes, your song is worth this much and i will pay that to have on going access to this pattern, and i give you full rights to remove this pattern from my hardware should you see fit".

Obviously the law doesn't see it this way, but at this stage its safe to assume that the law isn't in societies interests at all, so also a moot point.

considering entertainment is hardly a job producing industry, not a vital service, nor even a real necessity.... why should it get more legal protection than any other industry?
Surely if a form of entertainment cant sustain itself, it needs to die.

I'm going to loose more sleep because we don't have a Neil Armstrong of our time, not because we don't have a George Lucas.

are you the same guy that estimates the street value of drugs when the cops make a big bust? maybe a mobile phone salesman regarding the "$10000 value" of the mobile plan only costing $30 a month?

now, i don't know about you, but in east ubexiztan(made up country so i don't have to find 1 of the hundred out there, china? i thought all art is public works in communist countries? at least at one stage it was.) there is no legal requirement to pay a create of works if you store a copy.

by that metric, the individual is carrying around nearly $100 worth of hardware and probably $300 worth of data? (data transmission does actually have a value, unlike the pattern your copying, which is made up.).

so your value only exists in the heads of people who think they deserve that much, the real value is quite considerably lower.

I think his point was that enforcing a "right to listen" is morally wrong, and that the recording companies only got away with having laws worded this way because previously there was always a physical attribute to the content you buy, so the consumer doesn't consider the song "a right to listen", however sees it as "i purchased this flat disc with rased bumps in it, if i put this in a record player then i can hear a tune i like". i paid for physical something, and now i have a physical something that i can do what i want with, because i own it!

we both know that the law is not written to be morally correct.

an analogy would be if i'm a carpenter and i have a very skilled way of whittling wood, 20 years ago i sold you a chair for $100, its your chair, i can still whittle my wood and make money selling chairs, no government intervention required.

skip forward to today, where CNC machines are standard household appliance. i still have my skill of whittling wood, i can either, "sell" my ability to an engineer who would convert my whittling skills to a CNC equivilant digital version, but i can only make money if the government enforces it.

my other option is to not have a digital copy of my chair (i don't have to give it out you know) and then charge a premium for original content, or custom work. because everyone can just download chairs now, but my 40 - 50 years of skill is always going to be better quality then the cookie cutter response, so i can now charge $400-$500 and my service changes from a consumer service to a premium service. maybe you want fancy chairs to draw a big crowd?

alternatively, i could freely give out my base chair design out on the internet with a suggesting custom jobs (think concert) come at a premium and generate my work from that way.

3 different options to have the actual generator of the valuable item maintain profit.

only one requires extensive government support (and your tax dollars), only one maintains a middle man that is just not nessisary these days. only one option requires foreigners in sovereign countries to follow our law in their own land for the system to even work.

unfortunately, its the system they are running with :/