I think the PR war to present Aaron's prosecution as legitimate is already lost. I see nothing but negative press on it now. It is fairly obviously another abuse by a prosecutor with a slowly unfolding history of such abuse.
Hilarious of you to characterize people's voluntary contributions to something assumed to be maintained as a communal resource with unpaid data entry. It is precisely this business model that you support that makes it impossible for most people to work strictly on projects in which they can have any lasting stake. Everything of lasting value belongs to the rich. To even get a sliver of that pie requires years of painstaking savings, much of which can be wiped out by bank fiascos such as our recent housing bubble.
I'm not as confident as some of the folks here that lasting positive change is on the way, but characterizing the current business model as anything but a mockery of justice is pretty sloppy thinking in my view.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
All of this is assertion without an explanation. The real reason for copyright originally appears to have been to give the government control of printing by banning printing except through government approved outlets. This is hardly an example of the social contract in practical application. The fact that so many object to the draconian measures being taken against even the smallest infraction against huge corporate interests' interpretations of IP infringement strongly suggests that it is in actuality the other way around inasmuch as it is at all possible to document something as esoteric as the social contract.
I feel that you are the one not considering consequences. The slow breakdown of ideas of intellectual property has actually given industry plenty of time to adapt, but instead they are attempting to legislate their way out of the impending collapse. It is simply too east to make copies of things now. To stop it will require ever increasing violations of personal privacy and human rights. Now is the time to start working on change before things actually do get to a place where precipitous change will cause chaos.
The example I was trying to link as being over prosecuted involving something to do with student downloads. Note it also appears to have little to do with college policy as you characterized.
Sorry for the dead link.
This page is getting too cluttered.... Site needs an actual forum. LOL
Actually I can't find it as easily as you because my guesses at the keywords keep giving me ridiculously over prosecuted examples of abuse that more or less undermine your assertions that these six strikes policies will not be abused.
Which apparently don't strike you as human rights issues....
You admit it is not theft, then turn right around and discuss RP as a property right. IP is not property in the classic sense of the word. You bring up the UN, then turn around and ignore developing values such as in Germany where internet access is being seen as a basic, fundamental need in modern society.
It would seem to me that as a human rights issue, having huge corporations and the government always hovering over people and threatening them with ridiculously high fines, jail time, and loss of essential services would trump the "need" such as it is for artists to have their endeavors made artificially more valuable by attaching a threat of legal sanction against people making copies of work they did long ago.
To me, a performing artist has a right to get paid, pretty much just like the rest of us, when they show up to work. That's it. Artists that work in trades that leave a physical object behind deserve to get paid when someone buys their physical object just like everyone else. I do not really agree with this concept that we are going to take something like an idea and attempt to treat it as if it were a physical thing, like property. I am disturbed by the lengths to with you and people who think like you will go to promote this concept.
Social contract theory is not anything anyone can look objectively at anyhow. ModernDemagogue's use of it in this context is specious. I think you're right, at least to some extent, but there is no real knowing what precisely the "social contract" actually is at any given point, especially when democratic institutions have been short circuited as badly as they currently are, not just here in America but all around the world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: land of the free home of the brave
There was never enough gold to cover the money in circulation since well before Nixon. Nixon just did what needed to be done to keep the U.S. from being manipulated by foreign interests. When I read about Nixon's actions I almost never see any mention of partial reserve practices. There is not even a mention of it in the Wikipedia article even though Wikipedia also has extensive information on fractional reserve banking and central banks.
The U.S. does its fair share of over reaching, no doubt, but don't think that Europe and others are not playing the same game.
You're right. I mean, I did read your post but because I misinterpreted the lines it looked like you were responding to me, which made me totally misunderstand.
"A corporation has no duty to your first amendment rights. The ISP's are there because they make money distributing paid content. No one put a gun to their heads."
I wanted to address this specifically because it ties to all sorts of issues, not just copyright issues. People are getting more and more distressed that the government is outsourcing law enforcement issues to corporations, who then get to violate civil rights because they are not the government. This comes up in various issues such as urinalysis for jobs and whether or not information a corporation has on you requires a warrant for the police to search as long as the corporation is willing.
This sort of thing is not some sort of new thing under the sun. A huge part of what sparked the American Revolution was the cooperation of the government with corporations to exploit the colonists. The Boston Tea Party is the most glaring example. This ships? The ones with the Tea? Yeah, those were East India Company ships.
So your technical arguments, while having a fine basis in the law from a particular point of view, continually side step the issue that laws change due to the public's interest. The constant pressure to further and further push into people's private lives and place people in constant threat of violating laws or losing necessary services because of copyright is GOING to be addressed, sooner or later. Why not address it proactively now? Why the constant pounding on the consumer for the benefit of people who are making more money than they know what to do with anyhow?
You have time for ten thousand replies regarding this issue, but no time for any citations.
blrg BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok.
The ToS as part of your contract is a legal issue, which will resolve itself as a legal dispute when ISP's try to harass their customers.
Your take on the monopoly issue is pretty simplistic. I think though until the American public begins to give a crap it is a moot point.
And finally, you admit this will not work. That's sort of odd. Why are we going to harass tons of perfectly decent customers then?
What is the moral basis of your claim that someone is taking something when copying? If I sneak into a venue, I am taking up a seat. What am I taking up if I make a copy?
Where is the moral foundation of copyright? And why are you so vehement about it, since you openly state it is not theft? As far as I have been able to find, there isn't even very good evidence that copying is hurting artists or even the major outlets at all.
Disappointing that this has not already filled its quota. As the new quota is like 100,000, further efforts are going to have to be even more strenuous.
I haven't gotten email from Demand Progress lately either.... I subscribe to their site... that is a little unusual.
Well, this thread is hopelessly old and I will probably not get a response. I need to remember to ask this question when the topic arises again.
People are constantly arguing that no law can stop the piracy because the internet just evolves around the law. What is the big, gaping hole that will leave 6 strikes powerless against the pirating public?
My original reply was to someone complaining that Canada is not standing up to the US. My point is simply that Canada and hardly anyone else is, because we do what much of the rest of the Western world wants done anyway.
I have no doubt our military dominance is not what it was in the 80's, but show me the military that holds a candle to it? We're still all over the world doing things for the benefit of an international finance regime that benefits Europe as much as anyone else.
To make a long story short, there is a lot of accusation of America flying around from corners that are not any better off from a moral or ethical standpoint than we are.
I'm not terribly put off by your tone, I just do not see anything but a certain sense of personal authority backing what you say. I don't even really think I am saying anything all that far out of the mainstream - merely pointing out that America is not, all by itself, the big bad boobeyman people are making us out to be, and that if people don't like us throwing our weight around they can maybe spend some money on international military activities themselves.
Having us carry that weight all the time, then complaining about the U.S. being especially backwards and corrupt when it works in our favor, is unconvincing rhetoric to me.
This is horse manure. Coupled with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which states that Congress is tasked with regulating the militia, the Second Amendment very clearly establishes a method by which a large standing army is to be rendered unnecessary. The fact that we now have precisely such an army is just evidence that we have progressed way too far in the wrong direction.
The right to bear arms goes back to the Glorious Revolution and beyond. There is even mention of the right to defend one's self from a solider in Roman law.
Why are you just making this up?
Why are some more afraid of their neighbors than of an abusive government, seeing how often throughout history abusive government has destroyed the lives of multiple millions, whereas individuals misbehaving simply cannot pull this off?
Serial killers tend not to use guns. The largest mass killers tend to use explosives. Nothing is ever going to prevent the occasional disaster. They are going to happen. These gun laws people seem so desperate to get in place serve absolutely no purpose except to leave decent people defenseless, and yet you will mislead people by pretending to know the history of this amendment in order to promote further violations of its tenets.
If nothing illegal is going on, why the policy in the ToS? If it's a legal issue, why is it being dealt with outside the courts?
Where is the evidence this is exactly like what is done at colleges? What, if any, legal challenges have resulted from this policy at colleges?
Of course it's a legal dispute... Pfft. Even if it's contractual, there is still a legal aspect to it. You The ISP related part is not a criminal legal issue.
And finally, you've still done nothing but blow off the issue of monopolistic trade practices. Plus your continued characterization of copyright issues as if they are theft issues is flatly dishonest. U.S. jurisprudence makes a distinction that is quite clear. The question then as to why ISP's should be brought into the ongoing debate of what is good and right regarding copyright is a legitimate one. Enforceability is key. If copyright cannot be enforced without disregarding civil rights, then copyright law itself may end up unconstitutional. There is no good reason to be sacrificing the fist amendment to a very limited business interest.
This little end around to avoid due process is ridiculous on its face, and yet you seem determined to support it, and even seem to find some moral outrage despite the fact that technological development is obviously making copyright less and less viable in legal terms.
"Why do you think fair use isn't a defense" and "Good Faith judgement" are pretty well mutually exclusive concepts there, big bro.
Weird. What is your fascination with performing the kowtow to global finance and megacorporate interests anyhow? I am not comprehending your motivations.
I'd be interested in knowing where you're getting your information, but if my ISP is actually paying THEM to monitor me against my wishes, that's actually even worse.
I'm being forced to subsidize a corporation violating my civil rights.
Again, this is the kind of nonsense that led to the American Revolution. It wasn't JUST about the government. It was about the systematic corporate and governmental fleecing of the colonists. The East India Company was as much a target of the Tea Party as the crown.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
Hilarious of you to characterize people's voluntary contributions to something assumed to be maintained as a communal resource with unpaid data entry. It is precisely this business model that you support that makes it impossible for most people to work strictly on projects in which they can have any lasting stake. Everything of lasting value belongs to the rich. To even get a sliver of that pie requires years of painstaking savings, much of which can be wiped out by bank fiascos such as our recent housing bubble.
I'm not as confident as some of the folks here that lasting positive change is on the way, but characterizing the current business model as anything but a mockery of justice is pretty sloppy thinking in my view.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
I feel that you are the one not considering consequences. The slow breakdown of ideas of intellectual property has actually given industry plenty of time to adapt, but instead they are attempting to legislate their way out of the impending collapse. It is simply too east to make copies of things now. To stop it will require ever increasing violations of personal privacy and human rights. Now is the time to start working on change before things actually do get to a place where precipitous change will cause chaos.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The example I was trying to link as being over prosecuted involving something to do with student downloads. Note it also appears to have little to do with college policy as you characterized.
Sorry for the dead link.
This page is getting too cluttered.... Site needs an actual forum. LOL
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which apparently don't strike you as human rights issues....
You admit it is not theft, then turn right around and discuss RP as a property right. IP is not property in the classic sense of the word. You bring up the UN, then turn around and ignore developing values such as in Germany where internet access is being seen as a basic, fundamental need in modern society.
It would seem to me that as a human rights issue, having huge corporations and the government always hovering over people and threatening them with ridiculously high fines, jail time, and loss of essential services would trump the "need" such as it is for artists to have their endeavors made artificially more valuable by attaching a threat of legal sanction against people making copies of work they did long ago.
To me, a performing artist has a right to get paid, pretty much just like the rest of us, when they show up to work. That's it. Artists that work in trades that leave a physical object behind deserve to get paid when someone buys their physical object just like everyone else. I do not really agree with this concept that we are going to take something like an idea and attempt to treat it as if it were a physical thing, like property. I am disturbed by the lengths to with you and people who think like you will go to promote this concept.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re: Re: Re: land of the free home of the brave
The U.S. does its fair share of over reaching, no doubt, but don't think that Europe and others are not playing the same game.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: I'm not sure why this is relevant.
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
D'oh
You're right. I mean, I did read your post but because I misinterpreted the lines it looked like you were responding to me, which made me totally misunderstand.
Blergh. Sorry. Totally my bad.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wanted to address this specifically because it ties to all sorts of issues, not just copyright issues. People are getting more and more distressed that the government is outsourcing law enforcement issues to corporations, who then get to violate civil rights because they are not the government. This comes up in various issues such as urinalysis for jobs and whether or not information a corporation has on you requires a warrant for the police to search as long as the corporation is willing.
This sort of thing is not some sort of new thing under the sun. A huge part of what sparked the American Revolution was the cooperation of the government with corporations to exploit the colonists. The Boston Tea Party is the most glaring example. This ships? The ones with the Tea? Yeah, those were East India Company ships.
So your technical arguments, while having a fine basis in the law from a particular point of view, continually side step the issue that laws change due to the public's interest. The constant pressure to further and further push into people's private lives and place people in constant threat of violating laws or losing necessary services because of copyright is GOING to be addressed, sooner or later. Why not address it proactively now? Why the constant pounding on the consumer for the benefit of people who are making more money than they know what to do with anyhow?
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
blrg BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok.
The ToS as part of your contract is a legal issue, which will resolve itself as a legal dispute when ISP's try to harass their customers.
Your take on the monopoly issue is pretty simplistic. I think though until the American public begins to give a crap it is a moot point.
And finally, you admit this will not work. That's sort of odd. Why are we going to harass tons of perfectly decent customers then?
What is the moral basis of your claim that someone is taking something when copying? If I sneak into a venue, I am taking up a seat. What am I taking up if I make a copy?
Where is the moral foundation of copyright? And why are you so vehement about it, since you openly state it is not theft? As far as I have been able to find, there isn't even very good evidence that copying is hurting artists or even the major outlets at all.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Mergh
I haven't gotten email from Demand Progress lately either.... I subscribe to their site... that is a little unusual.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Where's the Hole?
People are constantly arguing that no law can stop the piracy because the internet just evolves around the law. What is the big, gaping hole that will leave 6 strikes powerless against the pirating public?
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 10 Years Later: Antigua May Finally (Really) Set Up Official 'Pirate' Site To Get Back What US Owes In Sanctions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Go Antigua
I have no doubt our military dominance is not what it was in the 80's, but show me the military that holds a candle to it? We're still all over the world doing things for the benefit of an international finance regime that benefits Europe as much as anyone else.
To make a long story short, there is a lot of accusation of America flying around from corners that are not any better off from a moral or ethical standpoint than we are.
I'm not terribly put off by your tone, I just do not see anything but a certain sense of personal authority backing what you say. I don't even really think I am saying anything all that far out of the mainstream - merely pointing out that America is not, all by itself, the big bad boobeyman people are making us out to be, and that if people don't like us throwing our weight around they can maybe spend some money on international military activities themselves.
Having us carry that weight all the time, then complaining about the U.S. being especially backwards and corrupt when it works in our favor, is unconvincing rhetoric to me.
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats and fun with words
The right to bear arms goes back to the Glorious Revolution and beyond. There is even mention of the right to defend one's self from a solider in Roman law.
Why are you just making this up?
Why are some more afraid of their neighbors than of an abusive government, seeing how often throughout history abusive government has destroyed the lives of multiple millions, whereas individuals misbehaving simply cannot pull this off?
Serial killers tend not to use guns. The largest mass killers tend to use explosives. Nothing is ever going to prevent the occasional disaster. They are going to happen. These gun laws people seem so desperate to get in place serve absolutely no purpose except to leave decent people defenseless, and yet you will mislead people by pretending to know the history of this amendment in order to promote further violations of its tenets.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where is the evidence this is exactly like what is done at colleges? What, if any, legal challenges have resulted from this policy at colleges?
Of course it's a legal dispute... Pfft. Even if it's contractual, there is still a legal aspect to it. You The ISP related part is not a criminal legal issue.
And finally, you've still done nothing but blow off the issue of monopolistic trade practices. Plus your continued characterization of copyright issues as if they are theft issues is flatly dishonest. U.S. jurisprudence makes a distinction that is quite clear. The question then as to why ISP's should be brought into the ongoing debate of what is good and right regarding copyright is a legitimate one. Enforceability is key. If copyright cannot be enforced without disregarding civil rights, then copyright law itself may end up unconstitutional. There is no good reason to be sacrificing the fist amendment to a very limited business interest.
This little end around to avoid due process is ridiculous on its face, and yet you seem determined to support it, and even seem to find some moral outrage despite the fact that technological development is obviously making copyright less and less viable in legal terms.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why do you think fair use isn't a defense" and "Good Faith judgement" are pretty well mutually exclusive concepts there, big bro.
Weird. What is your fascination with performing the kowtow to global finance and megacorporate interests anyhow? I am not comprehending your motivations.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm being forced to subsidize a corporation violating my civil rights.
Again, this is the kind of nonsense that led to the American Revolution. It wasn't JUST about the government. It was about the systematic corporate and governmental fleecing of the colonists. The East India Company was as much a target of the Tea Party as the crown.
Next >>