The idea that copying someone else’s work is not theft is upside down and backwards. The fact that computers and digital storage make copying easier does not lessen the crime of stealing someone else’s property.
My computer copied this text in order to display it. I then copied it so I could reply. You still have access and use of it. Theft?
And I would also remind you, nothing is free. If you can’t compete with free, it means you can’t compete with someone that has deeper pockets, which, of course, is often true. We want competition, competition is good. If only the rich compete, the rest of us suffer.
Congratulations, your cognitive dissonance is working as intended. So much contradiction...!
We want the starving artist, having slaved over his work, to succeed, not fail in the face of those who are better funded. Copyright helps the artist.
Your art is worth what the market says it's worth. If the artist can only make money by pretending only he can make copies of his work, he deserves to starve. You're also pretending that copyright, in and of itself, provides an income. That's not how copyright works. Ever. Copyright depends on people being willing to pay for the product. If nobody wants to buy it the artist starves despite his labour.
Pointing out the exception and ignoring the rule is just stupid, kids.
There is no exception to my points. Nobody is obliged to purchase something just because somebody slaved over it. I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones so I don't buy GoT stuff. Oh no, the poor artists!!
Yes indeed. Democracy prevents tyranny. It's why tyrants hate it so much they do everything they can to derail its institutions till we find ourselves a strongman to keep us all safe from the boogeyman.
It's not supposed to be some kind of life insurance or pension scheme either. Writers get advances from publishers. Royalty payments don't kick in until the publishers have made their money. You have to be insanely popular to make money from copyright rents.
Actually, no. Copyright doesn't protect anything, it just gives the rightsholder the standing to sue for infringement. It does nothing to stop infringement in the first place.
Its value, then, is to provide the standing for commercial infringement lawsuits. Going after small fry is counter-productive.
For all the bawling about the increase in anti-intellectualism and the assault on established institutions, etc., has it not occurred to anyone that they need to be trustworthy in order to be trusted?
Attacks on elitism begin when incidents like this occur. Mr. Pyne has not brought the university into disrepute, its own behaviour did that. What he has done is show them that a problem exists and that they ought to resolve it. They should be grateful, not doing everything they can to degrade intellectual endeavour by reducing it to a pay-for-play deal where any old Joe can get work published irrespective of its merits.
Google doesn't control search results, that's impossible. It does, however, curate them by removing objectionable and illegal content when it's flagged up.
It also downgrades the search results on websites that try to game the system to get themselves higher up.
It only dominates search to the degree that it does because users don't use other search engines, which you can discover by looking for them on Google. Therefore no antitrust action is required.
There is a socialist leaning group here, and the opinion that with a perfect government, there would be no crime and maybe no need for money, seems to have broad based acceptance. With that in mind, in that (imagined) society, we would need no police (no crime) and everyone would have happy peaceful crime-free lives and (presumably) easily share the great wealth of the country around them. Towards that end, if you are just “quiet” and go along with the mob then the government will guarantee your “safe space” and shield from difficult questions and silence any dissenting voices on your behalf so you can have a nice quiet safe life.
The right-wing voluntarian anarcho-capitalist version is just as childish.
And that, my dear friend, is the whole entire point of partisan politics; the game wherein the sheep have to choose between two wolves on the understanding that "their" wolf won't devour them.
**The right of the individual Vs The right of a group of individuals**
Those rights should be held in careful balance, not presented as a direct choice between one or the other. I call it the Twofold Principle: the individual must be free to act and the will of the people must be respected.
Yep. It's and it's not okay. As Eldakka said, the harm is ongoing for as long as the images are distributed. The FBI's privileged position has caused them to see the rest of us as bugs.
Given the provenance thereof, this is hilarious! Oh, Jay-Z, mate, you were supposed to know better about how copyright licensing works than t'other lot and it seems that they are more savvy than you are! And this guys is a copyright-owning artist, folks! Oh, what fun!
Eh, not quite. You've got predatory cops who believe they are above the law and a system more interested in protecting its image than in sorting itself out.
We see this privilege-v-prey story acted out in a number of scenarios, not all of which are as deadly.
This is the problem with being over-privileged; you lose your ability to empathise with the "other" people, you consider yourself above them, you're indifferent to their suffering, you consider them a nuisance, after which it's only a matter of time till you see killing them (or letting them die) as pest control.
This is why I rage at partisanship every time I see it; I can see the same pattern emerging in partisan thinking.
On the post: Ajit Pai Gloats As House Fails To Restore Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: It Is Both Ridiculous And Dangerous To Make Domain Registrars Liable For Content On Domains
Re: Copying is theft
The idea that copying someone else’s work is not theft is upside down and backwards. The fact that computers and digital storage make copying easier does not lessen the crime of stealing someone else’s property.
My computer copied this text in order to display it. I then copied it so I could reply. You still have access and use of it. Theft?
And I would also remind you, nothing is free. If you can’t compete with free, it means you can’t compete with someone that has deeper pockets, which, of course, is often true. We want competition, competition is good. If only the rich compete, the rest of us suffer.
Congratulations, your cognitive dissonance is working as intended. So much contradiction...!
We want the starving artist, having slaved over his work, to succeed, not fail in the face of those who are better funded. Copyright helps the artist.
Your art is worth what the market says it's worth. If the artist can only make money by pretending only he can make copies of his work, he deserves to starve. You're also pretending that copyright, in and of itself, provides an income. That's not how copyright works. Ever. Copyright depends on people being willing to pay for the product. If nobody wants to buy it the artist starves despite his labour.
Pointing out the exception and ignoring the rule is just stupid, kids.
There is no exception to my points. Nobody is obliged to purchase something just because somebody slaved over it. I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones so I don't buy GoT stuff. Oh no, the poor artists!!
On the post: California Town OKs Destruction Of Police Shooting Records Days Before They Could Be Obtained By The Public
Re: Re: Re: Inglewood?
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The GDPR Nearly Ruined Christmas
Re: Re: Dear Mike,
On the post: Study Says Wireless Retail Workers Could Make Up To 7% Less In Wake Of Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re:
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
Re: Re: Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
Its value, then, is to provide the standing for commercial infringement lawsuits. Going after small fry is counter-productive.
On the post: Appeals Court Hands ReDigi Another Loss; Says Reselling Mp3s Violates Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube's $100 Million Upload Filter Failures Demonstrate What A Disaster Article 13 Will Be For The Internet
Re: ahhhh
On the post: Mystery Lobbying Group Using Huawei Security Hysteria To Target Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: why lobby
You can only really hope for the best after you've prepared for the worst.
On the post: School Boots Professor Off Campus After He Exposes Its Complicity In Predatory Publishing Schemes
Anti-intellectualism: cause, meet consequence
Attacks on elitism begin when incidents like this occur. Mr. Pyne has not brought the university into disrepute, its own behaviour did that. What he has done is show them that a problem exists and that they ought to resolve it. They should be grateful, not doing everything they can to degrade intellectual endeavour by reducing it to a pay-for-play deal where any old Joe can get work published irrespective of its merits.
Streisand, meet effect.
On the post: State Attorneys General Really Want To Go After Big Internet Companies; But Claim It's About Privacy, Not Bias
Re:
It also downgrades the search results on websites that try to game the system to get themselves higher up.
It only dominates search to the degree that it does because users don't use other search engines, which you can discover by looking for them on Google. Therefore no antitrust action is required.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?
There is a socialist leaning group here, and the opinion that with a perfect government, there would be no crime and maybe no need for money, seems to have broad based acceptance. With that in mind, in that (imagined) society, we would need no police (no crime) and everyone would have happy peaceful crime-free lives and (presumably) easily share the great wealth of the country around them. Towards that end, if you are just “quiet” and go along with the mob then the government will guarantee your “safe space” and shield from difficult questions and silence any dissenting voices on your behalf so you can have a nice quiet safe life.
The right-wing voluntarian anarcho-capitalist version is just as childish.
On the post: Following Public Records Request, State Legislature Votes To Make Government Contracts Secret
Re: Re: Re: probably won't happen
Learn what words mean.
On the post: AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like
Re: Er - not AT&T
On the post: FBI's NIT Hit 8,000 Computers In 120 Countries... As Did The Child Porn It Was Redistributing
Re:
Those rights should be held in careful balance, not presented as a direct choice between one or the other. I call it the Twofold Principle: the individual must be free to act and the will of the people must be respected.
On the post: FBI's NIT Hit 8,000 Computers In 120 Countries... As Did The Child Porn It Was Redistributing
Re:
On the post: Prince Estate Sues Tidal, The Streaming Service That's Kind To Artists, For Copyright Infringement
Re:
On the post: Albuquerque Police Officers, Supervisors Accused Of Deleting, Altering Video Of Use Of Force Incidents
Re: Re: Maybe I'm just confused
We see this privilege-v-prey story acted out in a number of scenarios, not all of which are as deadly.
This is the problem with being over-privileged; you lose your ability to empathise with the "other" people, you consider yourself above them, you're indifferent to their suffering, you consider them a nuisance, after which it's only a matter of time till you see killing them (or letting them die) as pest control.
This is why I rage at partisanship every time I see it; I can see the same pattern emerging in partisan thinking.
Next >>