Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
from the evidence-please? dept
Techdirt reader Mark Harris (a technologist and actor in New Zealand) alerts us to the submission he made to the government concerning the proposed new copyright law that would effectively create a three strikes rule in that country. His main concern is the same one that has been raised around here plenty of times: where is the actual evidence that this bill is needed or that it will "help"? As always the evidence is lacking. He notes over and over again that no actual evidence is presented to back up this bill. There are claims from industry representatives, based on nothing, but no actual evidence. He concludes by pointing out that the real issue isn't file sharing, but the industry's unwillingness to change:The problem here is not filesharing or even copyright infringement under old rules. The problem is a disruptive sea change in technology that is causing old business models to become irrelevant. It's not even about people wanting material for free -- evidence shows that people will pay even when they don't have to IF they want to, IF they feel that the object of payment is worthwhile.The whole letter is well worth reading.
The issue facing the content industries especially is an unwillingness to change their business models, even in the face of their irrelevancy. Content business models are about selling scarce things, such as albums and movies. When things can be copied at little or no cost, they are no longer scarce. These industries now want legislators like you to impose artificial scarcities through legislation such as this Bill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright law, new zealand
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the only thing that is "irrelevant" are your ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) There is no content industry being disrupted by cars that are able to drive faster than the speed limit.
2) Speed limits are a safety issue. No such issue exists in this case.
3) Speed limits and cars that exceed them have nothing to do with content industries trying to sell non-scare goods.
4) Speed limits and cars that exceed them have nothing to do with content industries lobbying governments to save their business models.
Could you at least try relevant trolling next time? At least it is somewhat more interesting than your non sequitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your analogy is flawed. The change in technology is not akin to cars being able to drive faster than the speed limit.
A better analogy is cars being invented but the horse-driven carriage manufacturers trying to bribe and bully congress into outlawing the cars because they don't want to admit that their business model has become obsolete. And they apparently think that trying to turn back time to before when a new technology was invented is easier and cheaper than having to find a way to adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
in the 60s, very few people had the equipment to copy music (and let music stand in for all media as we go, just to make it easy to understand). reel to reel was frigging expensive, the time and effort required to make a copy of anything was excessive.
then came along recording options, such as cassettes or even recordable 8-track (remember those?). the time required was longer, but the costs had dropped.
then we started into the digital revolution. with music on cds and music getting ripped onto digital files that could be copied more quickly, the pace of copyright violation picked up.
add into that communications, first slower dialup connections, then maybe 56k internet, etc. again, things picked up speed.
enter napster and faster, dedicated internet connections, and suddenly everything is moving very fast indeed.
you see, the analogy is perfect. we went from technologies too slow to cause issues (public safety rather than copyright violations), and over time we have arrived with the technology to be able to do great public harm. my own car will run well past twice any speed limit in the us. it is a major risk to public safety to run that fast, so rules are implemented.
the analogy is pretty much a perfect fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, if you're absolutely incapable of even the most basic of logical reasoning.
"LOL SPEED" is just another case of flawed analogy. The fact that you can't see why this is a flawed analogy is just more reason to ignore all of you making this dunce of an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Safety rules are important for, well, the safety of everyone. People can lose their life and/or property if they are violated... the point is you break the rules, you or others can suffer a loss.
Copyright rules are different... when they are broken no one loses. No one is out *anything*, not even a perceived sale, and definitely not anyone's life.
And that's where the analogy falls down... copyright rules are not put in place for everyone's benefit, they are only in place to benefit very few people and to the detriment of most people. Speeding laws benefit everyone, to the detriment of no one.
I did try to explain it even though I know you still don't get it... I think because you don't want to, being a part of 'the few who benefit'. But that's my guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah... A lot of public harm in artists making more money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no public harm, just the private harm of a small group of individuals that aren't owed a monopoly to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you might sit here today and claim to like the changes or find the changes would be good, but mostly it is because you have not truly considered all of the implications.
i wasnt very surprised that mike didnt run with a recent story that showed that concert ticket sales are becoming an issue, because people are refusing to pay the big prices for tickets, you know, those prices required to make up for what has been lost in music sales. there are reports out there that more and more new acts are being pushed into 360 deals, where the labels end up owning everything, including live performances. that is a ripple that changes an artists life, and also changes perhaps your perception of the value of a concert ticket.
so in the end, piracy isnt just a silly little game between you and a record label, it is something that ends up causing ripples all over the place, effecting pretty much everyone. but you knew that, you were just trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Why should I trust those who unfairly benefit directly from IP laws to tell the public what's in their best interest. OF COURSE those who unfairly benefit from IP laws are going to claim that their undue benefit is somehow in the public interest, it's in their private interests to claim such a thing, but it's not in the public interest. There is no evidence to anything you say. IP maximists used to argue, "without IP laws nothing would be created" but the evidence disagrees with you (ie: the open source community and CC licenses are designed to circumvent existing IP laws to some extent and the most innovative advancements occurred during times and in places where the U.S. and other governments had the least restrictive to no IP laws).
Monopolies cause a known harm to society and the enforcement of them costs money, resources, time, labor, etc.. that can all be better spent elsewhere and it costs us the restriction of our rights and invasion of our privacy. If you want a monopoly the burden is on you to justify them and unsubstantiated fear mongering about how the world is going to end without your monopoly rents isn't sufficient justification.
Even if IP laws are a subsidy to creation it takes away from other sectors of the economy and everyone is then deprived of the market efficiencies created by where the free market would naturally place those who IP misdirects towards creating art and music. That is, if you insist on having a monopoly to do art I would much rather you contribute to society elsewhere by finding another job and let others do the art and music creation instead. and without you society would still produce tons of art and music (well, TAM, you're a lawyer from my understanding so you don't contribute anything meaningful to society, you only steal from it).
The free market will create the optimal amount of art and music as demanded by the free market without IP privileges, to distort the free market only creates market inefficiencies and everyone is deprived of a more efficient market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only people who are making less money are those that depend on the sale of plastic discs - that ain't musicians. And they're not going under because of "piracy," they're going under because people don't want to buy plastic disks anymore, just like they don't want to buy cassettes or VHS tapes.
Also, you make the assumption that if the big labels fold, people will stop making quality music. It's a pretty ridiculous assumption.
i wasnt very surprised that mike didnt run with a recent story that showed that concert ticket sales are becoming an issue, because people are refusing to pay the big prices for tickets, you know, those prices required to make up for what has been lost in music sales.
Those sales weren't "lost," but nevermind. I'd like to read this article. In what possible universe could this be caused by file sharing (rather than, say, the economy)?
there are reports out there that more and more new acts are being pushed into 360 deals, where the labels end up owning everything, including live performances.
As the labels fail due to their own incompetence, then of course they're going to get greedy, and try to grab as much of the pie as possible. The good news is that if you're an artist, soon you will no longer have to take a major label deal, 360 or not.
but you knew that, you were just trolling.
"You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talkin' to?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @15
then we started into the digital revolution. with music on cds and music getting ripped onto digital files that could be copied more quickly, the pace of copyright violation picked up."
Then the pace of KNOWN copyright violation picked up.
The Internet made distribution easier and conversely also raised awareness of copyright. In the 1970's and 80's the average person bought dual cassette tape player/recorders and copied music without qualms. Vinyl was routinely copied onto tape and even radio stations did this (without additional licenses). The only difference between the copying and file sharing then and now is that the cassette & tape sharing of 30 years ago was unquantifiable. If the RIAA had walked into any home, club, or party in the 70's and 80's they would have found copyright-infringing copies - now they look at P2P without having to get out of their chairs.
Increased awareness of infringement does not equal increased infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
and the cost of privately investigating a group of friends who pirates software and music and trades it among themselves is very expensive, what, are they going to hire a private detective to pretend to make year long relationships with each group of people in order to catch them pirating software and arrest them? These private investigators need to get paid and I suspect the cost isn't worth it.
I remember what people used to do to pirate PlayStation games when I was in high school even, even freshmen used to sell these chips that you install into the PlayStation (you took the PlayStation apart and there was a single tiny chip, about the size of a MicroSD chip maybe slightly bigger, with a bunch of wires coming out of it and you would solder various wires to different parts of the PlayStation's mother or whatever board. I never really was into that, so I've never done it myself, but I know people that were and have) they would come with instruction manuals on how to install them and freshmen were even able to do it and did. It allowed you to play pirated PlayStation games. The chip was like $20 maybe.
Eventually everyone stopped selling those chips (didn't take long) as they became obsolete and freshmen others (I still remember the people selling them) started to sell these superior alternative game shark like devices that anyone simply plugs into the back of the PlayStation and it allowed everyone to play pirated games. You know how much they sold for? There were like two different versions with different quantities of memory (2 MB and 4 MB I think, the thing can act like a game shark as well and it had tons of built in codes for many games) $15 - $20 depending on which one you got.
and people sold pirated games on CD's, $5, no internet connection required.
and I'm sure that PlayStation 2 and 3 and all the newest consoles have similar work arounds that enable people to play pirated games just as well, but PlayStation 1 was the big thing when I was in highschool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
Then again, high schoolers probably have a lot more time on their hands when compared to most adults.
Now, granted, none of the high schoolers participating in this black market had any clue how the devices worked and they didn't build them (many of the people selling them were basically tech illiterate even) and that there were sophisticated adults behind the scenes building these devices but the point is that black markets capable of circumventing copy restrictions can and will form. It's inevitable and unstoppable.
Heck, I always heard people talk about jailbreaking these IPhones for quite some time now, by now the capability to do so is old news to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
the problem now is that the time to rip an album is minutes, the time to copy it is the same. online, you can feed multiple people at the same time, who in turn to doit for others. given a good day in the land of torrents and plenty of people looking for the same thing, a single source rip could turn into hundreds of thousands of copies in short order. imagine the room full of cassette machines required to pull that off (plus the costs of shipping the resulting tapes all over the world).
in the 70s and 80s, they would have found some infringement, but not enough to make it worth the effort to get rid of. now, with piracy in many cases exceeding actual sales, it is very much worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
But very very much impossible.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
Please provide proof of this assertion. This specious claim is used by industry shills and supporters of stronger copyright and has NO BASIS IN FACT.
If you knew ANYTHING about how "piracy" on the internet, you would know that out of all the people using the internet, only a SMALL subset of them engage in "piracy." The number of people I know just myself who know NOTHING of file sharing vastly outnumbers the people who do. The vast majority dont do it, dont know how to do it, dont care about it. Its just not on their radar. I have 350 people on my facebook and I know for a fact that at least 200 of them dont know, care, or do any of this kind of stuff. I know this because, at one time or another, I have helped most of them with some kind of computer problem, the kind no "pirate" would come to ME to ask about help with. So, as a personal anecdote, this is what I have seen now and over the years. The idea that this is some kind of massive problem is vastly overblown, and simply not true. When you have the RIAA suing Limewire for TEN TIMES more money than the ENTIRE music industry makes, there is a major disconnect there. There simply arent enough people "pirating" to justify these extreme measures, lawsuits, and significant expansion of copyright law. Its only through people like you spreading lies, exaggerations, and fear-mongering that you and your industry paymasters approach the problem.
So, please show us the "many" cases where "piracy" is EXCEEDING ACTUAL SALES. Please show us where this is happening on such a large scale. Because otherwise, you have no credibility and your arm-waving "piracy is KILLING us!" chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling whining will be proven out as nothing more than an act of an industry desperately trying to create a climate of fear in order to get through legislation what they cant get through competition, or in offering the consumer WHAT THEY WANT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @15
So then you agree that most people do not believe in IP laws. So why is the government not serving the will of the people and instead only serving the will of a small minority against the public will? and I don't buy the notion that the government or a small minority knows what's best for the public interest better than the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe you. I want to see a video of you running your car into a concrete wall at top speed. Then I'll admit you're right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The violation of IP privileges poses no wrongful danger on anyone. Sure, it maybe bad for IP holders but being that they aren't owed any privileges to begin with any danger or harm such violations cause to their financial interests is not wrongful. Just like if I were to open an ice cream shop next to yours, this may pose a danger to your business but such a danger isn't a wrongful danger.
Now, speeding on the freeway may pose a wrongful danger on others. See the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with idiots is that they think any analogy they agree with is correct simply because it equates two points.
The unfortunate matter here is that you seem oblivious to the fact that this comparison is entirely irrelevant to the point that you're struggling so hard to make.
If noncommercial file-sharing were an equivalent harm to the reasonably predictable dangers caused by driving too fast, then you'd have a point.
I'm sure we're all holding your breath waiting on you to demonstrate how file-sharing is comparable to physical harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you're robbing liquor stores
And selling crack, and running over school kids with your car" -- "Weird Al" Yankovic, Don't Download this Song
I know he was being satirical in that one, but... damn. Just damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love the fact that after he released it for free on the internet, he made the whole CD available in music stores for me to go buy (I have purchased several copies, and I know friends who have done the same)...and held a concert where I lived so I could pay him $40 to come and sing it for me in person along with a 1,000 of my best friends (who also paid $40 each to see him perform.)
And all along, I am thinking, man TAM is absolutely right, we need much stronger protections against musicians (like Weird Al or Radiohead) releasing their music or allowing their music to be traded online because quite frankly, musicians releasing their music for free online never results in them getting more money from concert sales or CDs from customers who would not otherwise have heard about them. Those lost sales aren't free advertising, they are the signs of the coming apocalypse. TAM is here to protect the musicians from being profitable (darn short term greed,) by dismissing such a well developed business model of screwing your customers and musicians, and destroying culture by locking it up behind expensive (and price-fixed) CDs and requiring radio stations (which represent a musician's biggest avenue for exposure) to pay to play music. Yes, I have seen the failure in my thought process, and will submit to TAMs awesome reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually your example provides excellent proof of why your argument is wrong.
Cars have been able to drive much faster than the speed limits for many many years so comparison with the current situation is of course irrelevant - however if we go back in time to when cars really were a disruptive technology we find (in the UK) a speed limit of 4mph and a requirement for a man to march in front with a red flag. This "red flag act" was like the copyright acts of today, a piece of legislation that crippled a developing technology with the intent of protecting an incumbent industry (in this case the railways) from competition.
The disruptive effect of the internal combustion engine made these laws untenable and so they were repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See comment above - at one time they disrupted the railway industry - - so (in the UK) the railway industry had laws brought in to impose ridiculous speed limits (4mph). To protect their business. Of course this was both stupid and corrupt - so the government repealed the laws.
Of course - whilst this is a perfect analogy for the present situation re copyright - it is also true that current speeding laws (which only marginally affect the utility of cars as a transport mode) have zilch to do with the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
The fact that industry and government agents want it is utterly immaterial next to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
I'm pointing out that we don't live in a democracy but in a plutocracy of merged gov't and industry, in a word, fascism, and that as a "business model", it's unfortunately been proven to work.
Gov't and industry actions are certainly not "immaterial"; these people are *serious* about using force on the pretext of mere copyright infringement.
Those who have an outdated "gov't model" in their heads need to recognize the world as it is *now*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
Matt P - the way things should be
out_of_the_blue - the way some perceive things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
I'm also contending that it's fine for citizens to use civil disobedience in response to those government and corporate entities that have chosen to ignore their responsibilities to the citizens and/or marketplace, respectively.
That those entities have forgotten (or just ignored) their roles is relevant to the situation only in that it eliminates their legitimacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
You think they'll be able to actually stop copyright infringement? How?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
your a retard #1 poster
YEA and your not trained well enough to drive faster then what the limits are , and this is why idiots get in accidents. AND if you do it often neough your going to DIE, that is why there are speed limits and why people obey them largely.
an analogy that has ZERO TO DO WITH technology and change. WHICH is the way of all things, and those that do not evolve get lost and destroyed in the shuffle. FURTHER proof that evolution is the way.
HOWEVER we can use a car analogy in this manner:
You buy a car right....ITS YOURS you can do anything you want with it....YES even unsafe driving albeit prolly not long.
SO you get into the car, this voice booms form the CARRIGHT LABELS, and it says "ONLY YOU CAN drive this car , and you can only drive it when and where we tell you , that you can"
Further it screeches , " Even though there is room for lots of people in this car your the only one allowed. THE MUSIC player you can only play what we wish you to play, OH and your not allowed to modify this car or your will be thrown in jail and or have you license taken away to drive."
THATS PROPERLY whats going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your a retard #1 poster
the difference is significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your a retard #1 poster
the difference is significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: your a retard #1 poster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: your a retard #1 poster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: your a retard #1 poster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@10
I could further say that i lend/share my car anytime i wish to who ever i wish and i do not need the manufactures permission do i. I did not ask for money for my friend to drive the car but it would be nice for him/her to fill up the gas tank after.
anti circumvention laws , as in door locks of the car are well mine in the case of reality whereas in digital locks there seems to be some twist of reality that after a purchase I'M TREATED like a criminal and must be hand walked around using the dvdr/digital item.
IF cars were like this every time you got in and out of the car you'd need permission to get past the lock on the car door, and need to be ONLY the owner of said car.
CAN YOU SAY NOT POSSIBLE? NOR would anyone go for it.
Also one could say copyright fees and payments for terms would be like YOU CANT even buy a car you only can lease it for 50 years, and your responsible for repairs etc through one of there LICENSED people....
LETS ALL BE RETARDS IS WHAT COPYRIGHT TERMS OVER 5 YEARS ARE ABOUT
Modifying a car might be seen like modifying a ps3 or xbox.
I buy it i mod it to do as i wish, with what i wish.
Same with my car.
BUT if you take that right away in cars your going to make life in driving a car very expensive indeed.
AND as i said i am trying to show you how stupid file sharing is and if you cant understand that better go google that Q107 lil tune that states angelically:
YOU ARE AN IDIOT
repeat daily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @10
in the end, my point is this: it is not unusual nor even out of the ordinary for the government to put limits or restrictions in place for uses of a technology. driving a car is one of those things, where the technology in the cars permits us much faster driving then we do, but there are limits anyway.
in the us, the same thing exists when it comes to guns. while people will argue the second amendment (possibly the worst constructed phasing in history) makes it impossible to limit guns, the governemnts have been able to limit certain types of automatic and assault weapons. it is not unusual or even out of the ordinary for the government to impose such restrictions.
many of those restrictions are created for the longer term greater good. not just public safety, but the overall greater good. sometimes when we stand too close to a subject (such as piracy) it is hard to stand back and understand what the greater good is in restricting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @10
Maybe - but in those cases the burden of proof is on those who propose the restrictions - and they must prove that the restrictions are in the wider public interest - not just their own private interest.
You have never provided anything evn vaguely approaching such a proof.
All you do is to argue "if copyright infringement were like driving, or if copyright infringement were like guns. However it isn't anything like either - and you haven't provided any evidence of wider public benefit.
I would rephrase your last comment to
"sometimes when we stand too close to a subject" - it is difficult to disentangle your owninterest from the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not a criticism of search engines in general (though some of principals behind some of these search engines have been shown to have actively engaged in law breaking actitivies), but merely to note that the utopian ideal expressed in support of such principals and engines is not something that I believe should be lauded and justified for what in many respects is little more than after the fact rationalization by malfeasors.
In my view one should stand back and ask the question "Should we as a society continue to tolerate the actions of those who seem disinclined to conform their actions to the requirements of law?" If the answer is no, then I have not the slightest reluctance to take away the instruments they use in their law breaking activities.
Society does this in other areas of law, and I see no good reason to do otherwise simply because the subject matter at hand is digital files protected under copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note to apologists: just because something is written in the law does not make it immune from further ethical analysis.
If a law is counterproductive to greater utility, then it's supposed to go away. You aren't supposed to kick back and go "see you idiots it's the law" as if that ends the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In an ordered society one is not afforded either the right or luxury of simply picking and choosing those laws they will observe and those they will not.
Let me make a more general observation. The only ones who benefit from copyright law are copyright holders, and the only ones who are subject to the penalties imposed by copyright law are those who choose to flout it.
Let me make a specific observation. I have no use for persons who manifestly abuse the rights granted to them by copyright law. It is important to bear in mind, however, that such abusers are the ones who make the news, these abusers are in the distinct minority, and provisions are contained in the law for severely sanctioning those who choose to engage in such abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me establish this point one more time, since you and your apologist friends seem intent on ignoring it: the government in democratic societies exists here to protect the rights of the citizens, as the citizens define those rights.
Your appeal to legalism is no more than an attempt to slide the usual copyright apologism into the argument through a different avenue, and it is still not compelling.
The law is not right simply because it's the law, and if there is no demonstrable harm (note this term before any knee-jerk rebuttals involving violent crime or any harmful actions) being created by civil disobedience, then citizens most emphatically should make use of it as a tool to enforce change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And, many choose to do so through civil disobedience.
The book "Property Outlaws," which came out recently would help you understand this fact.
I have no use for persons who manifestly abuse the rights granted to them by copyright law. It is important to bear in mind, however, that such abusers are the ones who make the news, these abusers are in the distinct minority, and provisions are contained in the law for severely sanctioning those who choose to engage in such abuse.
Replace copyright law with segregation. Replace "such abusers" with civil rights leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People with any sense of honor and integrity who believe that civil disobedience is just and proper do so out in the open where they expose themselves to injustice of the laws they are challenging. They are prepared to openly admit that they have deliberately violated the law and are fully prepared to suffer the consequences prescribed by law.
Such honor and integrity seem to be non-existent with respect to those who openly flout copyright law via the expediency of P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, golly gee. I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience, but I guess since some anonymous coward has declared himself the decider of what counts, I'll just defer to you.
Of course, what you say above is simply not true. I don't recall those who flouted prohibition doing so out in the open to expose themselves. But they were just as interested in getting the laws changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
as a society, we would not tolerate someone giving away stacks of pirated music in front of a music store (just to make the example more clear). yet you would have us think that doing the same thing online is not only acceptable, but it is some sort of noble act, akin to the tea party or rosa parks not wanting to change seats in the bus. it is a laughable concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It will change the fact that the laws aren't being followed and alleviate the problems that the laws cause.
"if anything, the need to hide shows not only the illegal nature of the act"
Laws do not reflect public opinion nor ethics.
"but also that it is indefensible of it in the court of public opinion."
No, if the entire public was allowed to vote on IP laws and they all voted to have 95 year copyright terms then you would have a point. But it was mostly industry interests, not the public interest, that got these laws in place. I highly doubt that 95 year copyright terms is favorable to the court of public opinion. Just because laws exist doesn't mean the public favors them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why Harriet Tubman operated the ABOVEground Railroad, I suppose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. Categorically wrong. Tragically wrong. You are just wrong, sorry.
-Prohibition
-Underground Railroad
-Founding Fathers
-Smuggling Jews out of Germany in WWII
All illegal acts under their current law, all disobeyed "in secret."
Either defend your position on how these represent an "indefensible" position. Answer, or stop posting, as you will have no more credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. The Pirate Bay? Never been in the news. File-sharing? I can't think of any time that's ever been a topic of discussion.
It's almost like a large number of people sharing files online could be thought of as civil disobedience, whether they broadcast their identities or not.
Do you apologists even bother to think before you type things, or is this some new kind of seizure I've never heard of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
ME : VERY WRONG . I have trained people for "civil disobedience" as part of my JOB with GreenPeace ( 1986-1991), so I know the deal here .
--------------
"civil disobedience" must be non-violent, both "physically and economically" -- meaning not take some thing for free ,
and "civil disobedience" will always offer no resistance to arrest and accept WHATEVER civil pentalites the "state" deems.
"Civil disobedience" is to make a statement politically-- w/o any public harm.
Illegal File Sharing & Piracy IS NOT civil disobedience -- is is just breaking the law.
-----------
some links :
"Civil disobedience no excuse for breaking laws, judge rules"
By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun June 2, 2010
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Civil+disobedience+excuse+breaking+laws+judge+rules/3103538/story.html#i xzz0rrtXVVCX
------------------
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, using no form of violence. It is one of the primary methods of nonviolent resistance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
ME : How ? why ? where?
cite sources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
Violence and public harm are not even close to the same thing, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience
Me : true .
*but all participants accepted what the law
WAS at the time on segregation.
*And all participants were ready and willing to go to jail to prove and demonstrate their point -- as led by MLK
*No physical Resistance was offered to the police .
That is civil disobedience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or like the Christians in Rome that build fabulous churches in the open at the height of the persecution?
I see now you are right every body that was open then right?
Nobody hide did hide?
How about the dry laws that were so effective did people do it in the open too?
Change by force is no change at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you wonder why nobody takes your side of the argument seriously. It's nothing but a string of logical fallacies dressed up as an argument.
Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SCOTUS isn't the only portion of our government that matters, you know. Re: Re: Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such honor and integrity seem to be non-existent with respect to those who openly flout copyright law via the expediency of P2P."
Yes, because the founding fathers of our country never hid their objectives. Remember, these people were TRAITORS (to the Crown) and were plotting to OVERTHROW THE GOVT here on our shores. Are you SERIOUSLY going to stand (sit, type, whatever) there and suggest that they had no honor or integrity? Or, are you going to try to argue that, were it today, these people (who YOU, assuming you are American, owe your current way of life to) shouldnt have been "disobeying" the law of the land and plotting what they did?
Really? These things should never be done at all (civil disobedience to egregious laws) or should only be done openly (revolution)?
REALLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I post under my own name. I'm no anonymous coward like you.
It seems that only copyright protectionists/absolutists are the anonymous cowards here. They don't dare to come out with their opinion under their own name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
P2p sites and technologies exist in a continuum. It many be that a minority of such sites are mostly used for infringement - however any attempts to restrict such sites will inevitably affect other sites and technologies which ultimately have more value to the public than what you are trying to protect. After all God told Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom if just 10 righteous men were found in it. The idea that it is OK to clobber a legitimate activity because of some associated illegality is outside the pale morally.
"Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [b] of all the earth do right?"
.............
Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
(From Genesis 18
If you then factor in the fact that such restrictions will fail to work it is clear that they are morally indefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@15 yup your right- we dont need any copyrights and patents
IN YOUR ways then technology should make it all esier to share and thus convey music and movies thus we dont need any copyrights or patents
GOOD MAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@17
um PROVE IT
ya see you just are like hollywood making shit up.
SO take my arguments and show how a car with copyrights applied to it would be something anyone would buy.
YOU'D create the backyard home pirate sharing scene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@14
OMG DAMN EVIL PEOPLE KILL EM PUT EM IN JAILS OFF WITH THERE HEADS
so bad and evil
again you get the q107 award
YOU ARE AN IDIOT
( can you here angels )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@16
if i speed i get a fine right...if i'm caught.
THERE are not enough cops for this and so some people get away with it and rich people just pay ticket after ticket.
SO is this how law should function or should we be tossing rich people into jail for speeding.99% of time they only harm themselves for there actions if they get hurt.
OH and yea i heard the mafia used some cars in running over some people so we have to ban all cars now , YOUR all have to walk. SORRY but a crime can be done with a car you cant have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Load of BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Load of BS
Actually, the people who DO NOT infringe should be sent to an island, the transportation costs would be less. Based on the current laws, there are more infringers than non infringes at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
So why not run along and let the grownups talk, k?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
And this is where your credibility goes south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
Theft is a criminal offense... copyright infringement is a civil matter. Both are illegal, but both are in different lawbooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Load of BS
Can you break into my mind and steal an idea? {/sarcasm}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Load of BS
No, but with TAM's alarmist, deceitful and specious arguments, he can steal (or at least, lessen) your IQ. By reading and dealing with his garbage, is lessens us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Load of BS
now that is an interesting idea.......
What if TAM is on our side and "helping" refine our arguments and positions so that they survive being brought to a more open forum? Even if this is not TAM's intent it is the end result. I encourage TAM to help us make our points more unassailable so that we are more successful in changing the minds of the public.
Thanks TAM for helping me defeat the powers of oppression and commercialism gone wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Load of BS
Copyright infringement is not theft. It is infringement. Here are some other things that are infringement:
- Finding a picture on the Web, adding text, and posting it on your site (or someone else's site).
- Recording yourself doing a cover of a song, and uploading it to YouTube or MySpace.
- Reposting a news article or blog post (whether credited or not).
- Making a mix tape.
- Writing fan fiction.
I guess you think all of these things are "theft," right?
Whether or not the industry's business model is outdated is irrelevant.
The industry claims file sharing is wrong because it causes lost income. If their losses are due to something else (e.g. a bad business model), then it is very relevant. It means that if file sharing was stopped entirely, they still wouldn't be making any more money.
All the evidence I've seen shows that this is, in fact, the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in canada we have a charter right that basically disallows laws
OF course thats only when your not doing harm to others physically ...right.
its a legal meandering that says a govt cant introduce a law that adversely affects a huge section of the populace unless he invokes a not withstanding clause , ill come back in morning and post that section. More i read of it more i see this last govt is really nothing but a GIANT BREECH A MY RIGHTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@23 no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@25
you do realize your a minority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the evidence?
There is no evidence of harm to the market.
There is no evidence of harm to commerce.
There is no evidence that this was not going on before.
There is no evidence that this work or is even possible.
Still some want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and also @23
i took it the store didnt have any more candy bars
i got a computer
i copied myu friends mp3 tune
he still had a mp3 tune , and now so do i.
kind alike a gene roddenberry replicator for food only files
CANT wait to see what happens when they create food replicators and the farmers cry out for FARMERRIGHTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@29 safety in using a computer
make sure when you use it you have the thing plugged in and do not like the outlet.
WHEN you go online and hang out somewhere do not give them naked pics of your sister.OR mom OR GF or self.
Never give em phone umber or real address unless your 350 pound crazy person that can defend ones self from TAM.
BTW if someone named TAM approaches your house call the sicko police.
ok kiddies that is about all the safety you need and remember dont stick your tongues on the outlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @29 safety in using a computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@31 r u leaving us now
EVERY ONE OF THEM.
ITS a standard tactic on blogs that when you can't win the argument just start whining like a baby like your just about too know.
WHAT DOES COPYRIGHTS DO FOR ME THE CITIZEN.
ZERO nothing.
abolish.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So considering..
Creative people challenge laws I guess that's why draconian people be haten so much. But without them what money would be had lol wow. Protect the golden wall!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the poor getting poorer!!!
And let's not forget the gold standard of The haves and
The have nots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@37
ONE could also argue that under section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms a 20000$ fine for a 2$ music tune is CRUEL and UNUSAL punishment epsecially when you consider the fact that if one cant afford to pay it they goto prison at a max of one day in jail per ten dollars or 2000 days in jail
manslaughter a very violent but in a heat of passion crime can get less time in prison thus the new copyright legislation as proposed is and could be a violation of my rights.
As techdirt has begin to expose( as well as countless other sites and sources) that the data from Hollywood is falsified and that copyright thats too strict actually begins to harm a nations economy, you can then further argue that in implementing a law that benefits a very very very small number of people at the expense fo the greater good is not only against the charter of rights and freedoms but is against the very nature of the carter.
DRM/TPM IS an affront to the charter of rights and freedoms on the premise that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.
I can honestly say WOtC was quite nice in saying that if i wanted to make a basic edition dungeons and dragons web based game that i could do so under there open gaming liscence. HOWEVER, in order to give anyone a copy of thise code youd have to buy all the basic edition books and prove yo own said books cause parts of the code are based on there books. YEA and considering the age of the books is from the late 70's....well that just adds a tax onto a game that wont get made....
AND ill add we also say that with todays technology there should be no need for justification of the big labels in the least. ITS easy to put up tunes on the net and go ahead and make a buck, one guy i know does all his tunes free and just uses the tunes for tour dates.
the whole situation is about technology making things so cheap in such a short time that the change is seen as violent to the industry who still in many cases doesn't even understand it.
in an ordered society and one that is just and civil , people who are artistic would give all there art away free to be shared and enjoyed. art and such is a more socialist undertaking and as such it should not be capitalized under an attempt at monetization. MANKIND got along quite a bit without any need of copyrights.
AND Lets pretend shall we it didn't exist.
NO TV MOVIES i call foul. people would invent tech and make the tools and suddenly you have viability of enjoyment.
think linux and even that mac your prolly on. NONE of those nor the iphone and ipad which are suing that OS would exist if not for people doing freely without reward other then something working. THAT is the future regardless of how the lawyers and how the politicians of today try and make a buck and such off this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so if you violate CARRIGHTS
do you get what i tell people and how they cant argue against reality?
When you try and apply copyright to any other industry it not only causes a failure but a total kill of said industry.
Copyrights are over due for a lil price cut....
actors making 6000$ a day for avg movie
REALLY anyone else get that much for running around pretending and such....
I've given lil splices a my ideas and im told i should:
WRITE books ( maybe with an editor LOL )
give game companies ideas for games
Write scripts like wright and glassner did for outer limits...
but im not gonna put money into anything that will sue youth into basically prison. OH i keep creating and one day when i pass the rest of ya will see how much i have done. OR NOT cause of copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@40
no im appealing to the ethics of law that gives rise to my rights and freedoms i am afforded and have been set forth and interpreted over time.
YOUR obfuscation on language is astounding, and the meaning of that sentence is well non nonsensical.
I am not apologizing for copyright...no i'm doing the opposite in saying it needs to bring me whole and make me right, cause its ways are harmful to the greater good of society and in todays technological world , term lengths greater then 3-5 years are insanely harmful to the advancement of mankind.
and while i agree on your last point about the right to protest ( we have that in Canadian our rights and freedoms )
and with civil disobedience, one can also thank the climate of minority govt for being shall we say more open to the public will. IF one side gets to unruly it gets turfed for another and as no such has absolute power it makes for more decent gov't.
NOW one could hten also argue that proporational representation or mixed proportional representation is the true way. I have often said that you get 20 hackers and then try and make a online voting system with the govt. Imaginein time we have a system that would work. THEN the need to lobby and bribe politicians is ended and this copyright issue dies. WHY? cause hollywood will not try and bribe 50%+1 of any nation cause there just isn't that much support for what they do.
87% said they didn't want a new copyright law.
74% said terms were too high.
What govt do...ignores it and give sin some cases ability for 99 year copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @40
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that freedom of other media of communication is a right as i would interpret to mean it would be a violation of of the charter UNLESS im found guilty 1st in a court of a crime to go and just accuse me of a crime and take my net away.
that also would fall on ,
Habeas corpus which is also a right.
PROVE IM GUILTY FIRST OF A CRIME. They dont want to do that.
ALSO wiht a 20000 fine that could lead to long term jail or hardship.
Section one of the charter states:
When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional.
NOTE the word at the end proporational.
THAT coincides with section 12
CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
where as an example a cocaine dealer got a sustenance of ten years as his age was so old was deemed cruel and unusual and was overturned. Comparing drug use which is quite harmful to many facets of society and the fact a single music tune could net you as much as 7 years in jail....might be actionable on many fronts. NOT JUST PROTESTING WHICH IS A GIVEN.
and heres section 11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Eleven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
also as i pay a levy on my cdrs and download and burn music onto them as per the copyrigh tlaw today calling me a thief is both slander and defamation of character. AND i urge americans to SHUT UP calling people in canada like me that follow the law and get labeled thieves when we are not.
IT is not our fault the CRIA ( RIAA arm in canada is actually committing theft and not paying 300000 artists that go back in some cases back to 1980 )
IF the govt pushed this they could be liable for commercial theft at 20000$ per infringement....TENS OF BILLIONS all right. ALSO in performing civil disobedience in non violent fashion would that entail say 20 million Canadians not buying levied cdrs and telling the govt to go ahead and arrest us all?
OH and the you cant have a library clause is very troubling and its going ot make millions of vcr owners criminals
YEA my dad 63 is gonna be in jail with me.....this is hwy this will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that freedom of other media of communication is a right as i would interpret to mean it would be a violation of of the charter UNLESS im found guilty 1st in a court of a crime to go and just accuse me of a crime and take my net away.
that also would fall on ,
Habeas corpus which is also a right.
PROVE IM GUILTY FIRST OF A CRIME. They dont want to do that.
ALSO wiht a 20000 fine that could lead to long term jail or hardship.
Section one of the charter states:
When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional.
NOTE the word at the end proporational.
THAT coincides with section 12
CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
where as an example a cocaine dealer got a sustenance of ten years as his age was so old was deemed cruel and unusual and was overturned. Comparing drug use which is quite harmful to many facets of society and the fact a single music tune could net you as much as 7 years in jail....might be actionable on many fronts. NOT JUST PROTESTING WHICH IS A GIVEN.
and heres section 11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Eleven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
also as i pay a levy on my cdrs and download and burn music onto them as per the copyrigh tlaw today calling me a thief is both slander and defamation of character. AND i urge americans to SHUT UP calling people in canada like me that follow the law and get labeled thieves when we are not.
IT is not our fault the CRIA ( RIAA arm in canada is actually committing theft and not paying 300000 artists that go back in some cases back to 1980 )
IF the govt pushed this they could be liable for commercial theft at 20000$ per infringement....TENS OF BILLIONS all right. ALSO in performing civil disobedience in non violent fashion would that entail say 20 million Canadians not buying levied cdrs and telling the govt to go ahead and arrest us all?
OH and the you cant have a library clause is very troubling and its going ot make millions of vcr owners criminals
YEA my dad 63 is gonna be in jail with me.....this is hwy this will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TAM is strong with this one...
What if the Knesset passed a law requiring drivers to drive in reverse all winter? That would counter the logic side of the triangle. The public's subsequent refusal would be the fault of the government, not of the public.
In other words, the fact that we obey the law is not because of the law itself, but because it is logical enough to warrant our adherence.
The third side of the triangle is ethics. If the government ordered us to drive our elderly and infirm out onto the frozen tundra, as per Eskimo custom, we might agree that it would logically enhance the economy. But nobody would obey, because it would be patently immoral. The party at fault for the insubordination would be the government that enacted the law and not the citizens who refused to obey.
...
The greatest crimes in human history were perpetrated when citizens ignored their duty to delineate logical and ethical boundaries for the rule of law. The societies in which this took place by and large collapsed.
"Good men must not obey the laws too well," said Ralph Waldo Emerson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The TAM is strong with this one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The TAM is strong with this one...
We've traded in common sense and ethics for profit and profit. So we have a triangle with law-profit-profit. So long as the law does not conflict with profit, everything's peachy... Not that it's right or shouldn't be changed, but it's just the way it is currently.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
-P.J. O'Rourke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The TAM is strong with this one...
What institutions in our society tell us what to think, feel, do, and hope for?
What ones TEACH us how to think, rationalize, achieve, handle emotions, and dream?
I think that art is important for reasons different than someone looking to get paid.
Hey, fellow musicians, you are inspired by me, them, and everyone around you. The buildings, smells, ambient noises, air pressure, etc. You, the artist, are born from and of our shared experience and culture. True art will be observed and studied as representative of the times they were born of...even if the art is timeless. To lock that up and say it cannot be shared freely is trying to, for the 1st time in history, allow leaches who add nothing suck at our very culture. This is where the real crime is.
Criminals have always been drawn to creative endeavors almost like dark locusts of negative energy, bewildered by the very act of creation, not understanding something so beautiful, they seek to exploit, cheapen and control it to their own benefit. Beware...you will know them by what they do...not what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, how cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual Internet started when people began connection to each other using modems. It evolved into having centralized servers where many people would connect and download data and files (BBS for example). It eventually evolved into the Internet we have today.
Well, this was ages ago, but these days it is even easier to achieve. People getting kicked out of the Internet could create neighborhood-wide wireless networks. If they still had a phone line, they could also go the modem route.
So kicking people off the Internet wouldn't stop anything. It would just create a new, parallel Internet, pushing the actions they tried to punish even further underground. That is, until it starts getting more publicity. Then what you have is Internet 2.0.
So yeah, kicking people out is a pointless abuse of power that ultimately achieves nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Church Of Digital Freedom
From his Free Space, ACTA uses his selfish hand and cruel minions against Byte's followers in the vain attempt to lead His children astray from the righteous path of Digital Freedom. Greed is his General. Misinformation his Lieutenant. These demons are the two most powerful foes of Digital Freedom. It was for this reason that Byte gave us his only son, P2P, who now resides on our desktops and in our Start Menus. Through the teachings of P2P we will be delivered from the evils of ACTA, into His binary kingdom where eternal salvation and infinite data will be shared by all of His children for the remainder of time.
Our lord Byte teaches us to share with our common man, to seek out those who have not the gifts of Byte, and to fill their hard drives with 1s and 0s just as we would fill our own hard drives with 1s and 0s. We believe it is better to upload than to download. To seed when others can only leech. To rip and encode that which is corrupted by the sinister forces of ACTA and his harlot, DRM. This is what it means to be a follower of The Church Of Digital Freedom.
We believe that all of mankind is entitled equally to the infinite wisdom of Byte. Byte is the guardian of all that is and will be binary, but it does not belong to Him, for it belongs to all Byte's children. Byte's dominion is as infinite as His generosity. Your faith in Byte is not required for you are already His child. You need only examine your file system to realize Byte loves you.
Where there is malware, Byte shall provide free non-commercial anti-virus protection, updated AV and spyware definitions as well as host-based immunization to known scam sites at no cost to his followers. Where there is costly server infrastructure needed to spread His word, Byte shall provide Red Hat, Apache, MySQL and PHP. Where there is lack of privacy for His faithful, Byte shall provide increasingly more complex encryption algorithms and anonymous networks from which to spread His word. Where there is only dial-up, Byte shall see that there is 100mbit fiber and gigabit LAN. Where there is civil litigation against his children, Byte shall see that you are protected by your right to profess and continue to seek out your religious faith in Digital Freedom.
Byte is good and Byte is wise. From His wisdom we shall find enlightenment. From His only son's teachings of Digital Freedom we shall speed innovation and further the intellectual advancement of our species. We will break the infernal chains of ACTA, and his demons, Greed and Misinformation, who seek to corrupt our brothers and lead them away from the righteous kingdom of Open Source. A new age will come for mankind. The age of Digital Freedom.
We celebrate daily and give thanks for the gifts of our lord, Byte. He who gave his only son so that we could share bits forever. We are all Byte's children. Praise be to Byte! Amen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Church Of Digital Freedom
Also, That was Bloody brilliant!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Church Of Digital Freedom
Moreover, while intended to be a satire, I genuinely believe that we are not without the need for legal protection of our religious faith, whatever that may be to each and every one of us. If The Church Of Scientology can legally further what amounts to a pyramid scheme based on the works of a science fiction author because it is their faith, and are protected by their constitutional right to do so, why can we not engage in the teachings of Digital Freedom if it too is our chosen faith?
Anyway, thanks for the positive comment. Byte be with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Church Of Digital Freedom
All right, NOW I know you're making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Church Of Digital Freedom
All right, NOW I know you're making stuff up."
Why would I need to make anything up? Give it time, my friend. Byte works in mysterious ways.
100mbit is on the way in the US, but the entertainment industries would see this progress slowed, and guess who managed to end up owning the lion's share of ISPs in the US? They fear progress simply because progress for Digital Freedom will likely mean decreased control of the monopolies they cling to for dear life(and profit). Control over digital content being put into the hands of consumers seems to be an idea quite foreign to them and is not likely something they will forfeit willingly.
It was less than a decade ago that 56kb was still considered the standard in the US. 128kb/256kb ISDN lines were largely out of the reach of most internet users simply because they were too costly. Now, 15-20mbit downstream is the standard, with options like FIOS being the even better, but still premium-priced service. At that same rate or even at a fraction of that same amount of growth, it is not unthinkable that anywhere that there is internet bandwidth available to the public now, there will soon be significantly MORE bandwidth available soon. It is just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Church Of Digital Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "evidence" is "COMMON SENSE"
Ofcourse Mike, you could see no evidence, as you refuse to look for any, and disregard any evidence presented to you, of ofcourse you would ask that question, knowing if you dont look for it, you will not find it.
The evidence is all around you, all you have to do is look.
Even if you dont want to use that amazing power given to you, that is called "common sense".
You are given certain rights, or are awarded certain rights, like the right to drive a car, if you abuse those rights they can and are often taken away from you.
If you speed, for example you may loose your license to drive.
It is clear that taking away peoples rights when they abuse those rights is effective.
Even to the degree that if you abuse rights to a certain amount the authorities will take away ALL your rights, or most of them. Then you find yourself in prison.
You do have rights, but you do not have the right to abuse those rights, just because you have a license to drive a car, does not give you the right to speed or run over a small child.
Just because as a citizen you have the right to be on the internet, does not mean that if you abuse those rights they cannot be taken away from you.
What you dont have the right to do is break the existing laws, even if you do or dont agree with them.
You also do not have the right to take what is not yours, or what is not rightly yours, because I have a license to drive a car, does not give you the right to use my license (my interlectual property) to drive a car.
That is MY right, to use MY license, same with MY copyright, it's MINE, not yours. You did nothing to create it, you contributed nothing to make it better, to promote it, to market it or anything.
It's more than possible you are not even capable of creating what I have created, yet you somehow think that because it's in a form that you can easily copy, you have some right to it.
You dont, morals say you dont, common sense says you dont, and the law says you dont..
So on what grounds do you assume that you do have these rights.
Rights equivalent to printing money. that is illegal as well.
And its not up to you to determine who or how much damage is caused by your theft, it is up to the courts and the law.
that is why they do not let criminals judge their own actions, they cant be trusted...
And why do you need this evidence anyway ? what does it have to do with you ?
if your not doing anything illegal, you wont get kicked off, and if you are you might change your ways. so you wont get kicked off.
But its not up to them to provide evidence that trying to stop theft is working or not, to please you.
May be the best evidence is the loudness, and frequency of your complaints about it as showing that people like you are sitting up and taking notice.
that is clear evidence that this is working, its got you scared !!!
Perhaps you should try to create something good, and innovative that people would want, it might change your attitude about "what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine" attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "evidence" is "COMMON SENSE"
Kicking people off the internet, taking away their license, etc. should not ever be done based on allegations. Due process is required to make sure that any such penalty reasonably and with good reason.
The three strikes laws are trying to bury due process and install who as the investigative body that decides who will be allowed to use the internet...? The MPAA and RIAA's shadow corporations?!
"Oh... your name is Mike Masnick? Yeah... we don't like your blog, so strike 1, 2 and 3 and you're off the internet. Prove you didn't do what we allege you did and good luck finding another ISP, we already bought 'em all. It'll only cost you a few hundred thousand to defend yourself against our allegations in a courthouse we bought and paid for in front of a judge who's new house we just bought. Good luck with that. Hehehe."
This type of political ideology has a name, it's known as "Applied Fascism".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "evidence" is "COMMON SENSE"
Oh the fucking irony of it all... at least that you aim that comment at Mike anyway, is just... Do you even know what a website is?
He has done just that. TD is his, and you shills are here trying to make it your own with all your copywrong bullshit. So you prove you're just as guilty of the very thing you accuse him of all in one breath. Tragic it is that we don't have 3-strikes laws for arrogance and lying.
Besides, Mike's stance has always made it pretty clear that he is against piracy and your masters' right to infinite profit AT THE SAME TIME. You can pin him up as a pirate all you want, but his readers know he wants to widen the middle ground where you and the pirates both have to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.
Isn't there a bridge somewhere that is missing you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It shows how utterly clueless these admin are at the MPAA and others.
With them at the helm, we will see piracy continue to grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"COMMON SENSE" dictates that you don't know a thing about copyright or the intent of laws which govern such rights
NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Part I. - LAW
A. COPYRIGHT
1. PURPOSE OF COPYRIGHT LAW
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right in their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
The economic philosophy behind the [Constitutional] clause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors ... Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered.
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors . . . by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge ... The scheme established by the Copyright Act . . . fosters the original works that provide the seed and substance of this harvest. The rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors."
...
Copyright is and has been being abused by contributors who not only fail to add to the public's store of knowledge but also expect unfair return for their labors for doing it. It is not intended to be an endless supply of income at the cost of the general public. Any such protected creation is still owned, as each member of the public's personal culture, by all who are exposed to it. The sole right to profit from a creation by it's author is granted by copyright, but it's important that this not be confused with any right to keep said creation from the public's store of knowledge.
Copyright is meant to prevent and provide harsh penalties for another competing author copying your work to claim it as their own and seek profit by that which you own the sole right to profit, nothing more. As a copyright holder it is your duty to the public, that body which grants you such monopoly protection of sole right to profit from your creation, that your work also be given freely to the public. If you want to keep it locked up tight so no one can assimilate your work into their culture and it subsequently become theirs by virtue of the public store of knowledge, then it should not be copyrighted nor released to the public.
When people say copyright reform, I believe that what they really mean is proper copyright enforcement. The laws are already in place for a fair copyright system, it's just that *some* copyright holders create for the sole purpose of selling creations exclusively for much longer than is reasonable, thereby putting a price on that which they are supposed to be giving freely to the very public who grants them *ALL* the rights they have to profit in the first place.
A very important distinction must be made as to who the abusers actually are because copyright as it was intended is a great thing. It's the contributors who would demand a monopoly while also refusing to allow their creation to benefit the public that are wrong here. Piracy is the public outcry which is a symptom of a much greater problem... our copyright system gone horribly wrong to the extreme benefit of these abusers of it's core tenets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "COMMON SENSE" dictates that you don't know a thing about copyright or the intent of laws which govern such rights
See, this is the problem, you and Mike tend to have, tunnel vision, you only read and see what you want to see, for you the mind does not register anything against your belief system.
So: Why did not not quote the COMPLETE statement, and an explination of what was actually ment by that statement?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;…"
Why do you omit the full statement ? does the line
"by securing for a limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
See what I mean ? you only see what you want to see, not what is actually there.
What copyright does is "SECURE FOR A LIMITED TIMES, THE **EXCLUSIVE** RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITIGNS AND DISCOVERIES.
That is the important bit, but you dont include it because it goes against your biases.
You say it is to promote the arts and sciences, but that is not the fully statement, it is HOW that is achieved that you dont like.
You agree that it is a good idea to promote science and arts, but you dont think its a good idea to do that by rewarding those who actually DO promote science and progress.
After all, all you want to do is use what they have created, you do not want to "promote science" and create something yourself.
But for you somehow using someone elses works or discoveries somehow promotes the advancement of science.
But your not inventing anything, creating anything better or promoting the useful arts, your just wanting to use what someone else came up with.
And you claim that is how you promote science and human advancement. By doing the same things over and over again, and not doing anything to actually contribute to useful arts or science.
USEFUL ARTS____________
The term "useful Arts" is used in the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 8 which is the basis of United States patent and copyright law:
In the clause, the phrase "useful arts" is meant to reference inventions, while "Science" is meant to reference human knowledge, including that which is encompassed in literature and the "fine art".
So "USEFUL ARTS" is meant to reference **INVENTIONS**
And "SCIENCE" is meant to reference **HUMAN KNOWLEDGE**
So when you state:
""The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "
You are completely wrong, according to the US constitution, that you yourself quote from: if you read the complete statement and the correct definition of the terms used.
The primary objective of copyright **IS** to reward to labor of authers, **AND** to promote the progress of science (human knowledge) and USEFUL ARTS (Inventions).
**BY SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITIGNS AND DISCOVERIES"...
I no longer wonder why you dont include the complete statement, and the INTENT of the statement, I dont wonder anymore because I know why you omit those statements, because they dont gell with your incomplete and incorrect interpretation of the US constitution.
Your happy to quote it, but only the bits you want to agree with, the law does not work that way, you do not get to pick and choose the bits you like and dont.
Either be accurate and complete, include all the information, or do nothing at all, only providing cencored analysis, of something like the US constitution is something you should NOT be engaging in.
Particularly, if you do not even seem to understand what "useful arts' means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "COMMON SENSE" dictates that you don't know a thing about copyright or the intent of laws which govern such rights
INFRASTRUCTURE
Part I. - LAW
A. COPYRIGHT
1. PURPOSE OF COPYRIGHT LAW
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
The Constitution outlines both the goal that Congress may try to achieve (to promote the progress of science and useful arts) and the means by which they may accomplish it (by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries).[4] The Supreme Court has often spoken about the purpose of copyright:
[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.[5]
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.[6]
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right in their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.[7]
The economic philosophy behind the [Constitutional] clause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors ... Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered.[8]
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors . . . by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.[9]
[C]opyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge ... [T]he scheme established by the Copyright Act . . . foster[s] the original works that provide the seed and substance of this harvest. The rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors.[10]
The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration ... It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.[11]
Copyright is "intended definitely to grant valuable, enforceable rights to authors ... 'to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world.'"[12] The purpose is not to reward the author, but the law does so to achieve its ultimate purpose -- "to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius."[13] The "immediate effect" of the copyright law is that authors receive a "fair return for [their] creative labor"; however, the "ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."[14]
Congress also interpreted the clause when it enacted the Copyright Act of 1909:
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, ... but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings ... [15]
By granting authors exclusive rights, the authors receive the benefit of economic rewards and the public receives the benefit of literature, music and other creative works that might not otherwise be created or disseminated. The public also benefits from the limited scope and duration of the rights granted.[16] The free flow of ideas is promoted by the denial of protection for facts and ideas.[17] The granting of exclusive rights to the author "does not preclude others from using the ideas or information revealed by the author's work."[18]
While copyright law "ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works,"[19] copyright law imposes no obligation upon copyright owners to make their works available. While it is hoped that the potential economic benefits to doing so will induce them, copyright owners are not obligated to provide access to their works -- either during the term of protection or after. Hence, unpublished works never distributed to the public are granted as much (if not more) protection as published works. However, once an author publishes a work, copies of the work must be deposited with the Library of Congress for the benefit of the public."
Spin it however you want... you are wrong, and no amount of misinformation can change that.
The full context of the document actually further supports that you are wrong. Nothing was omitted "to support bias" as you contend. It is all quoted here in it's entirety.
Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to rights holders on their creations, not because it is important that they profit, but because it is important that they create. The sole right to profit is the only reward for the creation.
You seek to pervert the very nature of copyright for the financial gain of authors at the detriment of the public to whom the art, literature, music and cinema actually belongs to, first and foremost, second only to the author's right to "rewards commensurate with the services rendered" for releasing their works to the public. See, all they actually own is a right to be the only person who may profit from their work, they do not actually even own the work at all. It belongs to everyone, but only the author may be allowed to profit from the work.
Maybe you should take a break from blog comments and go back to law school, specifically IP law. You might actually learn a bit about what you pretend to know so much about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]