Incorrect, MAC. The Supreme Court has said that infringement is not theft. Allow me to repeat that for you, that you might understand (if you choose to allow yourself to do so): infringement is not theft. Physical traits do not apply to digital goods, because of the fundamental differences in their nature. Digital goods can be replicated to an infinite degree with virtually no cost. This renders the selling of individual copies meaningless, unless done with extreme care and pricing that accurately reflects the digital nature of the content.
I assume you understand the basic mathematical premise that 1+1=2. Therefore, understand also that when you copy a piece of content, the copyright owner still has their copy. Nothing is lost. Sharing is addition, not subtraction. Due to its ease of reproduction, it is also multiplication, on an exponential scale. Also understand that in most cases (at least with content from the legacy entertainment industry), the copyright owner is not the creator of the work, but rather a middleman that has been made obsolete by today's technology. Logic clearly dictates, then, that your emotional outburst is both inaccurate and uninformed.
The current situation was caused by the legacy entertainment industry's inability to adapt to the digital age and their fear of not being necessary anymore to people. Until they offer their content without DRM in the exact same way as those who infringe and on the exact same platforms as infringers use, for more reasonable prices, infringement will continue to occur. Also, just because something is a law, does not make it ethical. Do you understand that principle, MAC? I suspect that you do not.
Unfortunately, gorehound, our votes no longer carry any meaning. That entire process has been co-opted by those we would remove, so that they and those like them will always remain in power. They use every means possible to stack the voting in their favor, including bribes, reprogramming the voting machines, deliberately allowing votes to be miscounted, counting votes that would otherwise not exist, and purchasing votes. Therefore, I believe the only option available to us is to act from outside the system.
This is a quotation from an anonymous Usenet user about Windows, which I thought would be appropriate here:
"Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
Also, here is another, however, I cannot recall the source:
"In November 1998 an internal memo leaked out of Microsoft which clearly stated that Open Source software not only performs and scales much better than Microsoft Products (it discussed especially the quality and availability of Linux), but also proposed that Microsoft attack these superior products by "de-commoditizing protocols". In other words, when faced with a superior competitor, Microsoft's preferred approach is to corrupt global standards and to introduce proprietary protocols that bind the user to the Microsoft environment."
Tell me, AC 63, how do you determine whether a specific file is infringing or not? What specific processes did they use to make the determination that much of Usenet's content supposedly infringes? Answer this, as well, if you can: given two copies of a random .mp3 file, without being told their origin, what method would you use to determine which is infringing and which is not? There are no structural or operational differences between the two, so how do you tell them apart? Or will you admit that it is not possible to do so? That they are, in fact, identical?
Curious, AC 19, since you provide no evidence whatsoever that your claim is true. Therefore, it must be assumed that your assertion is false. Your unwillingness to address the topic in any direct manner testifies to the indefensible nature of your position. And your very presence proves that Mike's is indeed correct. Otherwise you and others like you would not attack him constantly as you do. You do so because what he says and does is a threat to you and your interests, and because others of significance are known to listen to him. I do not believe you can say the same for yourself.
Curious. It seems our resident maximalists do not comprehend the fact that the name of a file and/or its extension does not always necessarily indicate what the file actually is. Or that files can be packaged inside other files. For example, a video file could be compressed inside a .zip file. The number of possible combinations is virtually limitless, because files can so easily be altered on that superficial level without significantly affecting their usability. All the recipient would have to do is change the extension to the appropriate type if it were altered, for instance, or decompress any packaged files. And the name of the file need not directly refer to its content in order for it to be shared.
This, the ease of manipulating file names, location, and structure, is much of what makes it impossible to simply screen out infringing files as maximalists think can be done. That and the sheer number of files one would have to go through. A number that is easily and rapidly increased with the merest amount of time and effort. Also, maximalists fail to state how one distinguishes an infringing file from a non-infringing one. What characteristics in the file itself make one different from the other, if any. In actuality, there is no difference. None whatsoever. There is no structural or operational difference, for example, between an mp3 file bought on iTunes and one of the same song downloaded from the Pirate Bay. They are identical. And, given both and not saying which came from where, it is virtually impossible for anyone to tell them apart or to determine with any certainty their point of origin.
Obvious only to those who seek to create such a fantasy, AC 37. Or live in it, as you do. Those of us who dwell in reality know otherwise. The fact that you provide no evidence for your position of any kind makes it invalid. That and your tendency to result to insults over actually addressing what is said. Your very presence proves that Mike is correct, because if he was not, you and your kind would not swarm his blog every day as you do. If indeed you and the other AC's like you are not, in fact, the same person using multiple addresses. Which is, in fact, a distinct possibility.
Your assertion, AC 44, is incorrect. The monopoly is on the particular piece of content and its distribution. That is what must not be allowed to last any longer than is necessary, and two centuries of such control is far longer than is needed. The kind of control you seek is impossible and can never be restored. What you see as a loss of rights is, in fact, the public asserting their own right to their common culture. Which, I might add, outweighs the need for copyright many times over. Also, your incorrect use of the inaccurate term "pirate" is also flawed. People will do what they will in regards to obtaining content and culture, and it cannot be stopped. What you must learn is how to adapt and accept it and use it to your advantage. This is the new reality, one that cannot be avoided or suppressed. You would have as much chance of success at attempting to empty the ocean with a spoon.
You cannot base the enforcement of law merely on intuition and feeling, AC 25. You must have empirical evidence obtained through the normal channels of due process, and you must respect the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Guilt based upon accusation is not justice, but rather a witch hunt. As much as you wish to bypass the safeguards put in place by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is unethical to do so for any reason. Furthermore, where would you have the line of liability end? The third party? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Seventh? Exactly how far are you willing to stretch this concept in order to accomplish your goal of preserving outdated business models and corporate profits at the expense of civil rights?
All you need to do is read the article in its entirety, which you do not appear to have done, and you will see the falsehoods. But admitting that they are so would be contrary to your established position, and so it is unlikely that you will do it.
It is clear that the legacy entertainment industry and their supporters are worried, Mike. They know that what you say is heard and supported enough in places where it can make a difference that it has the potential to do so. Otherwise they would not flood this place as they do. If what you say was not a threat to them, they would not be here. Their very presence proves that you are correct.
AC 69, it is not logical to invent multiple falsehoods about a tool you like. Therefore, the only logical explanation is the one Mike gave you and which you refuse to accept: that they do hate the internet and what it represents. Namely, freedom of expression and freedom of communication. As I have said before, technology will always undermine what legislation seeks to determine.
Incorrect, AC 108. Mike does make it clear what he does and what he stands for. It can be found easily in the different sections of this site merely by exploring the links. You simply do not wish to accept it, because doing so is admittance that you are wrong. And like Lewis' character Uncle Andrew, you have convinced yourself that it cannot be true simply because you do not wish it to be. And so you hear and see only what you wish to.
Curiously enough, movie trailers and previews today still use the line "only in theaters" as if it's still true. It is not. Anyone who understands the reality of today's technology knows that such films are most definitely not just "only in theaters" but often found online before they even begin showing at the theaters. Originally leaked, more often than not, by industry insiders. Pretending what is reality is not is merely self-imposed ignorance. A most irrational behavior, yet not unexpected when observing those who oppose technological progress and freedom of expression.
When one's livelihood depends on ignorance and deceit, as those of the legacy entertainment industry, their supporters in government, and their shills here do, acknowledgement of that ignorance and of the true nature of their character is unlikely to happen by them themselves, only by those who recognize it for what it is. The survival of the old guard and those who speak for them depends on their blindness, and so they will not give it up, nor will they allow themselves to see the truth of what we are saying.
It is much like C.S. Lewis wrote in The Magician's Nephew of the character of Uncle Andrew, who could not hear Aslan or the other creatures speak because he would not allow himself to believe that they could, but only what he wanted to believe. It is the same with those who wish this bill and others like it to pass. They do not wish to accept that what we have been saying is true, they only wish to believe what they choose to. As Lewis wrote, "the trouble with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed."
The term "Beiber" may come to be known to refer to the act of attacking in some fashion those who are attempting to support you. Much as the legacy entertainment industries do to their customers. They choose to Beiber them rather than address their needs and concerns.
On the post: Tobacco Companies Think Their Trademarks Are More Important Than Your Health
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about our freedoms?
On the post: Tobacco Companies Think Their Trademarks Are More Important Than Your Health
Re: Re: Re: What about our freedoms?
"We're dealing with medievalism here."
- Dr. Leonard McCoy, Star Trek IV
On the post: Call Your Senators Today: Tell Them To Vote Against Censoring The Internet
Re: No morals...
I assume you understand the basic mathematical premise that 1+1=2. Therefore, understand also that when you copy a piece of content, the copyright owner still has their copy. Nothing is lost. Sharing is addition, not subtraction. Due to its ease of reproduction, it is also multiplication, on an exponential scale. Also understand that in most cases (at least with content from the legacy entertainment industry), the copyright owner is not the creator of the work, but rather a middleman that has been made obsolete by today's technology. Logic clearly dictates, then, that your emotional outburst is both inaccurate and uninformed.
The current situation was caused by the legacy entertainment industry's inability to adapt to the digital age and their fear of not being necessary anymore to people. Until they offer their content without DRM in the exact same way as those who infringe and on the exact same platforms as infringers use, for more reasonable prices, infringement will continue to occur. Also, just because something is a law, does not make it ethical. Do you understand that principle, MAC? I suspect that you do not.
On the post: CarrierIQ Fails At The Internet: Threatens Security Researcher With Copyright Infringement Claim Over His Research [Update]
On the post: SOPA Is Not About Copyright, It's About Regulating The Internet
Re: Protest this shameful Censorship
On the post: Microsoft 'Anti-Piracy' Campaign Explains Why It's Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software
"Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
Also, here is another, however, I cannot recall the source:
"In November 1998 an internal memo leaked out of Microsoft which clearly stated that Open Source software not only performs and scales much better than Microsoft Products (it discussed especially the quality and availability of Linux), but also proposed that Microsoft attack these superior products by "de-commoditizing protocols". In other words, when faced with a superior competitor, Microsoft's preferred approach is to corrupt global standards and to introduce proprietary protocols that bind the user to the Microsoft environment."
On the post: OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
Re: Re:
On the post: OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
"Who is the more foolish—the fool or the fool who follows him?"
It should not need explaining that the question refers to the maximalists and the organizations they support.
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re:
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
This, the ease of manipulating file names, location, and structure, is much of what makes it impossible to simply screen out infringing files as maximalists think can be done. That and the sheer number of files one would have to go through. A number that is easily and rapidly increased with the merest amount of time and effort. Also, maximalists fail to state how one distinguishes an infringing file from a non-infringing one. What characteristics in the file itself make one different from the other, if any. In actuality, there is no difference. None whatsoever. There is no structural or operational difference, for example, between an mp3 file bought on iTunes and one of the same song downloaded from the Pirate Bay. They are identical. And, given both and not saying which came from where, it is virtually impossible for anyone to tell them apart or to determine with any certainty their point of origin.
On the post: Viacom, 'Decimated By Piracy,' But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Happens When You Get Two Internet Haters Together? An Interview That Kills Brain Cells
Re: Re:
On the post: What Happens When You Get Two Internet Haters Together? An Interview That Kills Brain Cells
AC 69, it is not logical to invent multiple falsehoods about a tool you like. Therefore, the only logical explanation is the one Mike gave you and which you refuse to accept: that they do hate the internet and what it represents. Namely, freedom of expression and freedom of communication. As I have said before, technology will always undermine what legislation seeks to determine.
On the post: White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Would The Movie Business Be Like If The MPAA Succeeded In Killing The VCR?
On the post: White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
It is much like C.S. Lewis wrote in The Magician's Nephew of the character of Uncle Andrew, who could not hear Aslan or the other creatures speak because he would not allow himself to believe that they could, but only what he wanted to believe. It is the same with those who wish this bill and others like it to pass. They do not wish to accept that what we have been saying is true, they only wish to believe what they choose to. As Lewis wrote, "the trouble with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed."
On the post: Justin Bieber Sends Cease & Desist To FreeBieber Campaign
On the post: How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
One might also note that the true vampires of this time are the legacy media companies, the megacorporations, and the government that supports them.
Next >>