Prince Harry, and banning Nazi Symbols-
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You mean like Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Authoritarian?
Re: STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!
So your point was...?
All experiment with these matters happen in an enviroment where even if internet illegal downloads can't be stopped, they can still stop most illegal bussiness in the real world. So all arguments based on the current situation made about the complete abolishment of copyrights are faulty.
Yip, well said, there are many cases where targets or intent are not required. Freedom of speech is not one of those cases. And as that is what we were discussing, I have no idea why you brought up manslaughter and criminal negligence.
Yes, this is vaguely true, but that doesn't mean the law doesn't extend further than government interference. It slightly depends on the definition of freedom. To quote Geoffrey Robertson, for instance...
"Freedom of speech" in our current lawsystem doesn't just entail protection from the government, it also entails protection from other, just as "the right to live" also entails protection from others and the government.
Example; if your boss makes you sign a contract which says "employee may never say anything negative about the mother of his boss" that contract is made void as it is inconstitutional, since it limits your freedom of speech (exceptions apply, confidentiality to keep company secrets for one).
In the same sense, "shut up or I'll kick the shit out of you" is infringing on freedom of speech, even though it has no legal reprecussions. It is a threat, which is what makes it illegal, but remember it is a illegal threat partially only because that which you take away from the person is his free right.
Sander said:
So your point was...?
Sander said:
All experiment with these matters happen in an enviroment where even if internet illegal downloads can't be stopped, they can still stop most illegal bussiness in the real world. So all arguments based on the current situation made about the complete abolishment of copyrights are faulty.
Sander said:
Yip, well said, there are many cases where targets or intent are not required. Freedom of speech is not one of those cases. And as that is what we were discussing, I have no idea why you brought up manslaughter and criminal negligence.
Sander said:
Yes, this is vaguely true, but that doesn't mean the law doesn't extend further than government interference. It slightly depends on the definition of freedom. To quote Geoffrey Robertson, for instance...
Geofrey Robertson said:
"Freedom of speech" in our current lawsystem doesn't just entail protection from the government, it also entails protection from other, just as "the right to live" also entails protection from others and the government.
Example; if your boss makes you sign a contract which says "employee may never say anything negative about the mother of his boss" that contract is made void as it is inconstitutional, since it limits your freedom of speech (exceptions apply, confidentiality to keep company secrets for one).
In the same sense, "shut up or I'll kick the shit out of you" is infringing on freedom of speech, even though it has no legal reprecussions. It is a threat, which is what makes it illegal, but remember it is a illegal threat partially only because that which you take away from the person is his free right.
Re: STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!
null and void.Kharn said:
Yes, but I was, dum-dum-dum, comparing a case where this isn't the case (as I said, some of O'Reilly books are freely redistributable). Also see the Project Guthenberg project, where they try to collect all non-copyrighted books, this includes most (if not all) classic books. These are freely redistributable, freely downloadable, yet still there are many companies who publish these books every year and make a profit off of them,Kharn said:
Currently that is not the case, but I am not talking about currently, because this isn't a debate about what the laws are now.
True, it's in part a semantics discussion. So the easy way out of this is to say that I was talking about a freedom of speech in the way that I defined it, not the way it is used now in our current form of law.Kharn said:
Re: STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!
The project Guthenberg project?
Of course this works for books, because this system has been in place forever. Remember there is no copyright on classics (though there is on translations of them), so that's always been a free-for-all.
Then again, books do offer something more solid and naturally (with translating, printing, transport which is bigger) have a less deflatable economy than music or film.
Though music has concerts to fall back on.
Film has dickshit. If cinemas don't have to pay filmproducers for their films, the film-industry will go down in seconds, this has nothing to do with DVDs or videos, filmindustry can't exist without what is basically it's biggest income; cinema (or tv for tv-flicks, but tv also won't have to pay)
Please don't twist around like that, it's weak.
Also, I completely forgot one problem in your idyllic free speech state: lying. Media can't lie, that's good. But other than that there's nobody under any obligation ever to tell the truth.
This means declarations made under oath become voide. Law cases which have no solid evidence but depend on word can not exist anymore. Everyone could bring in witnesses that could lie like nobody's business, which is deterred now. I'm not even sure how evidence-giving would work.
And what about inter-government communications? Sure newspapers could catch the government on lying, but that would not have anymore legal repercussion, just make the party more impopular. Quite frankly, I don't think that alone could deter every politician from lying to everyone's face. Right now a lot more are deterred by the direct threat of legal repercussion.
But even worse; secret meetings. Right now the cabinet can't lie to anyone in the government (Senate, Congress), even in meetings not shown to the press.
Sander said:
The project Guthenberg project?
Of course this works for books, because this system has been in place forever. Remember there is no copyright on classics (though there is on translations of them), so that's always been a free-for-all.
Then again, books do offer something more solid and naturally (with translating, printing, transport which is bigger) have a less deflatable economy than music or film.
Though music has concerts to fall back on.
Film has dickshit. If cinemas don't have to pay filmproducers for their films, the film-industry will go down in seconds, this has nothing to do with DVDs or videos, filmindustry can't exist without what is basically it's biggest income; cinema (or tv for tv-flicks, but tv also won't have to pay)
Sander said:
Sander said:
Please don't twist around like that, it's weak.
Also, I completely forgot one problem in your idyllic free speech state: lying. Media can't lie, that's good. But other than that there's nobody under any obligation ever to tell the truth.
This means declarations made under oath become voide. Law cases which have no solid evidence but depend on word can not exist anymore. Everyone could bring in witnesses that could lie like nobody's business, which is deterred now. I'm not even sure how evidence-giving would work.
And what about inter-government communications? Sure newspapers could catch the government on lying, but that would not have anymore legal repercussion, just make the party more impopular. Quite frankly, I don't think that alone could deter every politician from lying to everyone's face. Right now a lot more are deterred by the direct threat of legal repercussion.
But even worse; secret meetings. Right now the cabinet can't lie to anyone in the government (Senate, Congress), even in meetings not shown to the press.
Yeah, yeah, I don't proofread my text before posting so you get those kinds of odd grammar errors.Kharn said:
Anyway, Project Gutenberg, great place if you can't find certain old books.
Film indeed has very little, and the film companies would be in reasonably deep shit, although, then again, they have theater to fall back on and still sales from DVDs, although that is really a lot less. *shrugs*
I said "easy way out", didn't I? We could go into a huge semantics dicussion about which definition is more widely used and should hence have been used here, but I am really not feeling like it.
So the cabinet can lie to people not in the government?
Meh, true enough. You keep poking holes in my theory, 's no fun.
Sander said:
No, they don't. Theaters pay about 99.99% of the money they give to a company to buy the rights to show the film. 0.01% is the actual copy of the film. Since copies would be free-for-all anyway without copyright laws and rights to show films don't exist, theaters would pay aexactly 00.00% of what they are paying now to film companies.
Sander said:
Yeah wel yur a feggit.
Sander said:So the cabinet can lie to people not in the government?
No, but the difference between that and inter-government communications is that the former is public and the latter often is not.
Theater as in: performances and such. Make it more of a show.
Still, they'd be badly hurt.
Yes, so? Note the smilie, it's supposed to convey a sense of jest.
Sander said:
Film performed on stage is not called film, it's called theater (confusingly), hence that would no longer be the film industry...it would be the theater industry
Film industry is, more or less, a spin-off from the theater industry. Currently going to the movies is nothing other than seeing the movie on a bigger screen and sound to burst your ears, they could probably do a lot of things there, if they needed to.
I am taking a break from studying, so I looked to this thread to see if I felt like replying again.
But somehow, this thread has become a semantics discussion on movie/theaters now?
You Dutchies really have a short attention span, don't you?
But somehow, this thread has become a semantics discussion on movie/theaters now?
You Dutchies really have a short attention span, don't you?
Do you define everything as "semantics" these days? THis is many silly things, but it's not a semantics discussion.
Sander said:
...dude I'm sorry but WHAT?!
Camera angles. Zoom-in. Special effects. Getting everything juuust right. None of this can be reproduced on stage. And even if it could, who'd care?
No, do more things around the movie itself. I'm not talking about performing it on stage, but about enhancing the movie experience beyond the level of just watching a movie in the cinema. I don't think it'd be in any money-wise way feasable, though. Ah well.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Stalin=Killed a hell of a lot more, would have begun extermination of the Jews had he lived longer. He had already set up new forced Jewish 'Homeland' in Eastern Siberia.Jebus said:
Nero....? Not as bad. A pervert, but surley did not kill as many as Hitler or Stalin, even when populations perportions are considerd. I always thought of him as Byron with a purple toga.
I'd personally say Mao and Pol Pot where as bad as Stalin and Hitler, as Mao killed about 50 million and Pol Pot killed 1/3 of the total population.
I pray to God Henry is the last of the British Royalty. That institution's been doing nothing for 200 years.
Sander said:
What, you mean like if someone farts in the movie it would start to smell like fart in the cinema? If there's an earthquake, the seats would start to tremble? Even if that would be free of charge, which it would naturally not be, I'm not sure I'd want that kind of experience; I think cinema experiences are fine the way they are.
Luke said:
It would open up a world of possiblities with porn movies, though.
Sander said:
That would still give no reason to actually make movies, since nobody is actually paying for the movies.
CC said:
ARGH! You people are so annoying!
Kharn said:
You still listen to that? I stopped paying attention to these kinds of comments ages ago.
Abandon a political thread for a week and the whole thing turns into a bullshit fight. Gotta love that.
Good thing I'm not to be blamed for this one.
Good thing I'm not to be blamed for this one.