[2012-Feb-02] Internet Rights

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

User avatar
sotic
[Insert Here]
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:55 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by sotic »

>2012
>Comparing file sharing to physical theft
>mfw

Image
Wind catches lily / Scatt'ring petals to the wind: / Segmentation fault

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6508
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by smiley_cow »

I didn't say that. I said any website that allows file sharing can be used to share copyrighted material.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canadia!

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by DonRetrasado »

KRAMER!! GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.

User avatar
sotic
[Insert Here]
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:55 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by sotic »

smiley_cow wrote:I didn't say that. I said any website that allows file sharing can be used to share copyrighted material.
No, the unregistered said it. Maybe I should have quoted properly.

ed:
R.W. wrote:a better analogy would be that the cops are shutting down the woman's store because she's selling stuff that she stole from the store next door.
I think a lot of other stupid stuff was said but I can't be bothered to read more than a few sentences
Wind catches lily / Scatt'ring petals to the wind: / Segmentation fault

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6508
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by smiley_cow »

sotic wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:I didn't say that. I said any website that allows file sharing can be used to share copyrighted material.
No, the unregistered said it. Maybe I should have quoted properly.

ed:
R.W. wrote:a better analogy would be that the cops are shutting down the woman's store because she's selling stuff that she stole from the store next door.
I think a lot of other stupid stuff was said but I can't be bothered to read more than a few sentences
Oh, sorry about that.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by GUTCHUCKER »

Wouldn't a better analogy be lending a book to someone else which was originally bought from a store, but keeping a carbonstealer copy of the overpriced book for yourself?
My analogy kind of breaks down because making an analogy of an action which is already as simple as 'giving something to somebody' is really fucking stupid.
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.

User avatar
sotic
[Insert Here]
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:55 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by sotic »

Comparing information to any sort of object is silly. It can be duplicated without error and at no cost.
Wind catches lily / Scatt'ring petals to the wind: / Segmentation fault

R.W.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by R.W. »

smiley_cow wrote:The problem with your analogy is that if something like SOPA were to have passed it would have been social networking sites, particularly sites like reddit, Tumblr and youtube, which are not set up for pirating but some people use for file sharing and copyright violations anyways.
A fair point, and something which I had not considered. Still, I would like to meekly submit that the comic's analogy of a store being shut down for having similar products is incorrect. A better one, given your point, might be to shut down a store because it had patrons who were selling stolen goods inside the store. Which does indeed sound a lot more insane. Now, bear in mind that the government couldn't shut down your store/site just like that... there is the FRCP 65 to consider, and besides that SOPA was focused of foreign piracy, and the US govt couldn't shut down foreign sites. They could, however, say that US advertisers, US ISP providers, and groups like PayPal couldn't work with them (although I heard that the ISP thing was changed shortly before SOPA itself fell apart?), which would mean that the store would lose access to US advertisement, US internet viewers, and PayPal. My point is not that SOPA was harmless, but simply that it's not the kind of shutting-down-for-selling-similar-products bad that people were so worried about.
This shows a lot of ignorance about why privacy laws are important in the first place. Never trust that your government when given power they could abuse will make the moral choice not to abuse it. Because eventually guaranteed someone in power will. Besides, if there is a need to read someone's email, say they're investigating a serious crime, law enforcement officers can already get a warrant. So it's an unnecessary law in the first place.

The mindset that if someone is doing nothing wrong, they should be fine with having their privacy invaded is a very dangerous mindset.
This is also good point, and before anyone else decides that I'm just ignorant I would like to make a very nitty-gritty distinction which (I think) will show that we're not necessarily that disparate on our ideas. The SMBC comic asks why it's reasonable for people to say that the government should be allowed to keep people's emails but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal, but it's unimaginable to have a world where the government opens and photocopies your mail and reads about your sex life. Insofar as SMBC is making an analogy between the two worlds, there is the critical distinction that in the world proposed by Mr. Government, he says that they will look at it only if someone is a criminal, and that in the second world they're looking at people's mails willy-nilly. It's as if SMBC made a comic asking why it's reasonable for people to follow traffic signals, but it's unimaginable to live in a world where the lights all go green at once and chaos ensues. The first world is reasonable because we are assuming that the powers that be are good, and the second world is unimaginable because we are assuming that the powers that be are bad. So, rather than critiquing the argument on the basis that emails are similar to paper mails, it would be better to focus on the issue of whether the government is trustworthy. If we did write a law that allowed the government to read our mails, but we did say that you had to have a warrant or a good reason or whatever, can we trust the government not to read our mails without due process?

And that's a fair issue. I don't think I've said that the government for sure won't abuse it's power, and if I did I take it back. Will they? Maybe, maybe not... I can't claim to know the future. We can look to the past and make predictions, which is why your point about McCarthyism is very valid. You could also throw in things like the Japanese internment or the treatment of Native Americans to show the dangers of governmental overreach. BUT, you also need to look at all the instances where government power doesn't turn into a worst-case scenario. "Never trust that your government when given power they could abuse will make the moral choice not to abuse it." The police and military have the power to turn us all into North Korea faster than you can say "Article 1, section 2". All they need to do is declare it an issue of public safety and they can revoke habeas corpus... or heck, why even bother with the Constitution? Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and the military has every gun worth having. The notion of due process doesn't stop bullets, and even if you're a big 2nd amendment fan you probably don't have anything that can take down an Abrams tank or an F-22 (at least, I hope you don't). If it were true that governments ALWAYS abuse power when they have it, the world would be a very different place than what it is.

So the question is, what stops them? Why didn't Bush in 2008 or Clinton in 2000 just call in the marines and declare themselves President-for-Life? I believe that this is because of a respect for the law. The law said that their term was up, and dang if they didn't step down. You can even see it in the fact that politicians have to discuss and propose these laws (sometimes to SOPA-style protests). If they REALLY wanted to, they could search your house right now... just send in Delta Force and drag you into the black helicopters, kicking and screaming about due process for all the good it'll do you. Instead, governments have to propose laws to do that kind of nasty stuff, and the proposals lead to folks like us freely arguing about them on the internet. The fact that they this even happens shows that governments do have at least some respect for the law.

Now, before you tag me as some pro-government stooge, bear in mind that I'm not saying that governments respect the law 100% of the time. But nor will I go so far as to say that they will ignore the law 100% of the time. I think that these are the real issues that need to be discussed, and I don't think that they're as clear cut as many people think they are.

R.W.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by R.W. »

sotic wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:I can't be bothered to read more than a few sentences
I was worried that might be the case... :(

R.W.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by R.W. »

sotic wrote:Comparing information to any sort of object is silly. It can be duplicated without error and at no cost.
But information costs money to be produced (people have to work to make it in the first place). The value of information can even be seen in physical objects. Why is a book worth more than a stack of paper? Why is a music CD worth more than a blank one?

User avatar
sotic
[Insert Here]
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:55 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by sotic »

R.W. wrote:
sotic wrote:Comparing information to any sort of object is silly. It can be duplicated without error and at no cost.
But information costs money to be produced (people have to work to make it in the first place). The value of information can even be seen in physical objects. Why is a book worth more than a stack of paper? Why is a music CD worth more than a blank one?
You're really missing the point here. Intellectual property isn't worthless, it's just not worth enough to go all 1984 over. Obviously it's more complicated than "let's make all information free forever durr" or "let's burn media pirates at the stake".

(See how a point can be made in just a few sentences? See?)
Wind catches lily / Scatt'ring petals to the wind: / Segmentation fault

R.W.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by R.W. »

sotic wrote:
R.W. wrote:
sotic wrote:Comparing information to any sort of object is silly. It can be duplicated without error and at no cost.
But information costs money to be produced (people have to work to make it in the first place). The value of information can even be seen in physical objects. Why is a book worth more than a stack of paper? Why is a music CD worth more than a blank one?
You're really missing the point here. Intellectual property isn't worthless, it's just not worth enough to go all 1984 over. Obviously it's more complicated than "let's make all information free forever durr" or "let's burn media pirates at the stake".

(See how a point can be made in just a few sentences? See?)
I'm not sure what point I'm missing. I never said that intellectual property is "worth enough to go all 1984 over", and I would agree that "it's more complicated than "let's make all information free forever durr" or "let's burn media pirates at the stake"." If I said anywhere that intellectual property is the be all and end all of value and that governments must do whatever is necessary to protect it, then I apologize and recant.

But yes, in a brief summary: I agree with what you just said 100%.

User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canadia!

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by DonRetrasado »

R.W. wrote:
sotic wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:I can't be bothered to read more than a few sentences
I was worried that might be the case... :(
Quoted the wrong person. Also goddamnit man try to make just one post instead of three.
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.

R.W.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by R.W. »

"I can't be bothered to read more than a few sentences"
DonRetrasado wrote:Quoted the wrong person.
Oh dammit, you're right. I'm sorry about that. I'll make sure to read more carefully in the future. My apologies.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6508
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

Post by smiley_cow »

R.W. wrote: This is also good point, and before anyone else decides that I'm just ignorant I would like to make a very nitty-gritty distinction which (I think) will show that we're not necessarily that disparate on our ideas. The SMBC comic asks why it's reasonable for people to say that the government should be allowed to keep people's emails but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal, but it's unimaginable to have a world where the government opens and photocopies your mail and reads about your sex life. Insofar as SMBC is making an analogy between the two worlds, there is the critical distinction that in the world proposed by Mr. Government, he says that they will look at it only if someone is a criminal, and that in the second world they're looking at people's mails willy-nilly. It's as if SMBC made a comic asking why it's reasonable for people to follow traffic signals, but it's unimaginable to live in a world where the lights all go green at once and chaos ensues. The first world is reasonable because we are assuming that the powers that be are good, and the second world is unimaginable because we are assuming that the powers that be are bad. So, rather than critiquing the argument on the basis that emails are similar to paper mails, it would be better to focus on the issue of whether the government is trustworthy. If we did write a law that allowed the government to read our mails, but we did say that you had to have a warrant or a good reason or whatever, can we trust the government not to read our mails without due process?

And that's a fair issue. I don't think I've said that the government for sure won't abuse it's power, and if I did I take it back. Will they? Maybe, maybe not... I can't claim to know the future. We can look to the past and make predictions, which is why your point about McCarthyism is very valid. You could also throw in things like the Japanese internment or the treatment of Native Americans to show the dangers of governmental overreach. BUT, you also need to look at all the instances where government power doesn't turn into a worst-case scenario. "Never trust that your government when given power they could abuse will make the moral choice not to abuse it." The police and military have the power to turn us all into North Korea faster than you can say "Article 1, section 2". All they need to do is declare it an issue of public safety and they can revoke habeas corpus... or heck, why even bother with the Constitution? Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and the military has every gun worth having. The notion of due process doesn't stop bullets, and even if you're a big 2nd amendment fan you probably don't have anything that can take down an Abrams tank or an F-22 (at least, I hope you don't). If it were true that governments ALWAYS abuse power when they have it, the world would be a very different place than what it is.

So the question is, what stops them? Why didn't Bush in 2008 or Clinton in 2000 just call in the marines and declare themselves President-for-Life? I believe that this is because of a respect for the law. The law said that their term was up, and dang if they didn't step down. You can even see it in the fact that politicians have to discuss and propose these laws (sometimes to SOPA-style protests). If they REALLY wanted to, they could search your house right now... just send in Delta Force and drag you into the black helicopters, kicking and screaming about due process for all the good it'll do you. Instead, governments have to propose laws to do that kind of nasty stuff, and the proposals lead to folks like us freely arguing about them on the internet. The fact that they this even happens shows that governments do have at least some respect for the law.

Now, before you tag me as some pro-government stooge, bear in mind that I'm not saying that governments respect the law 100% of the time. But nor will I go so far as to say that they will ignore the law 100% of the time. I think that these are the real issues that need to be discussed, and I don't think that they're as clear cut as many people think they are.
You're arguing two different things here. SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc. are laws. People in power ignoring laws are not following laws. I'm talking very specifically about the dangers of passing laws that give the government power that they could very well use to infringe on our rights. In the case of these laws those rights would be freedom of speech and freedom of privacy. I'm not talking about what an individual in power might attempt to do to stay in power by breaking laws.

Today if a government official attempted to discredit an opponent based on private information they got on them through illegal means, they would get into trouble and they would likely face consequences for those actions. But if it were legal, there's nothing stopping them from everytime they have a viable opponent just digging up whatever dirt they can on them and hopefully they're not into S&M.

And if you're going to argue that there are already laws out there that could very well be abused, I agree. And that's a problem. Remember, when Obama signed NDAA but promised he'd personally never use it? What about the guy after him? If Newt Gingrich became the next president, would he be as scrupulous? These types of laws are dangerous and shouldn't exist in the first place.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

Post Reply