Comment Re:Some years ago (Score 1) 424
There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.
That seems very naive and foolish.
There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.
That seems very naive and foolish.
I just want the people who collect the data to use it responsibly.
While you're living in a fantasy land, you may as well wish that they stop collecting the data at all.
I have an expectation that my government isn't tracking me just because I happen to be out in public.
You can't graduate high school without learning algebra
Wrong. You can graduate if you spew information back on poorly-designed tests; you don't need to understand any of it. Guess what that leads to? Plenty of people not truly understanding any of the material.
Well, if they're not gaining any money, I'm not sure it matters how much value they think their products have. Furthermore, they'll always be able to claim that some people are downloading their products illegally; it is simply so unlikely that everyone will stop infringing upon people's copyright that the possibility isn't even worth considering.
So does your ideology that it's OK to take things or copy that you do not have permission to take or copy.
I'm not talking about taking things, but copying them. I think government-enforced monopolies that encourage censorship and loss of control over real property is a disgusting violation of people's freedoms, but whatever.
Good luck not getting busted
It doesn't take much luck to not get busted; the situation is literally beyond anyone's control.
So, my points that downloading illegally does nothing but help enact even more draconian legislation regarding copyright, and that the only effective means of changing this practice is to universally boycott their products, stand firm.
Doesn't sound like it. The way you made it sound, they'll spin anything to support their draconian agenda, so no matter what happens, copyright infringement will be blamed.
Copying those things isn't the problem; what you would then do with that information is the problem. In the case of copying a movie, no such things happen.
Your analogy seems rather ridiculous.
and thus the outrageous prices and restrictions are considered justified.
Uh, no; the entire reason someone might download to begin with may include escaping the restrictions and ridiculous prices. If they're going to assume that someone downloading for free means they're doing everything right, then clearly they'd make out every situation to mean that their restrictions and prices are okay.
No, I don't understand the "moral hazard" of downloading a movie; I don't even believe there is one.
What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information.
And since they're humans, you can't trust them.
How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion?
Again, you couldn't trust them even if they claimed that was their goal; they're humans.
I don't see where it says it doesn't.
Maybe by a strict dictionary definition, but just because the dictionary says a word can be used in a certain way, that doesn't mean that people have to think it's a good idea for it to be used in such a manner.
You just justified the industry's efforts to block and pursue file sharers.
Absolutely nothing would justify that to me.
I don't see it, 'cuz I'm not a moral-less pilferer.
How does downloading a movie mean you're a "moral-less pilferer"?
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
